The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday in the House, the First Minister called my Colleague a "coward". I understand that that word is banned by Erskine May, and I would like you to refer it to the Speaker for his ruling.

Sir John Gorman: Yes, I will certainly refer that to the Speaker.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Thank you.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Sir John Gorman: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on foot-and-mouth disease.

Ms Brid Rodgers: It is now several weeks since I last addressed the Assembly on the subject of foot-and-mouth disease. As Members will doubtless be aware, the position — in Northern Ireland at least — has continued to improve during that time. There have been no further outbreaks of the disease; there are no suspected cases at this time; and the serology testing we have been carrying out on sheep demonstrates that the virus is not, and has not been, generally present in sheep outside the flocks which we detected and dealt with.
In recognition of that, the European Union granted regional foot-and-mouth disease status to Northern Ireland on 5 June. That decision has allowed the immediate resumption of exports of live pigs and certain products from susceptible animals — excluding beef, because of BSE. Sheep will again be eligible for export with effect from 1 July.
I am continuing to look at the remaining controls on the agriculture sector with a view to dismantling, or at least relaxing, them as the disease situation permits. I have particular concerns about the plight of the livestock marts, which remain closed. My intention is to permit the marts to reopen on a phased basis and under a suitable disease control regime as soon as it is safe for them to do so. This process should be able to start in the next few weeks.
Looking beyond the farming sector, the improvement in Northern Ireland’s foot-and-mouth disease situation is such that two weeks ago the Executive was able to issue revised guidelines allowing the reopening of land and property which had, until then, been closed.
It is hoped that we will be able to advance in the next few days by allowing some of the remaining controls and measures to be stepped down, while continuing to protect Northern Ireland against the threat of foot-and- mouth disease.
The disease situation in Northern Ireland stands in stark contrast to that in Great Britain, where foot-and-mouth disease continues to occur. This difference means that the controls that I imposed on the movement of livestock, products and people from Great Britain will have to remain in place until the picture there improves significantly. However, I have agreed that horses can again be imported from Great Britain; this is a change which I know the industry was keen to see.
As the risk decreases, I intend to scale down the effort that the Department has been devoting to control of the disease. I will redirect the resources released by this move to deal with other pressures.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development was testing about 10,000 sheep blood samples a day at one stage in the serology testing programme that I referred to earlier. Over 300,000 sheep or 10% of the Northern Ireland sheep population have been tested under that programme. That is a huge effort by any standards. The serology testing was carried out in those areas that were judged by the Veterinary Service to pose the greatest risk. The work is labour-intensive, and, bearing in mind resource implications and competing priorities, I am now exploring what further testing may be required for epidemiological purposes.
The dedicated foot-and-mouth disease helpline that I set up at the start of the crisis was no longer fulfilling the purpose for which it was established, so I closed it with effect from Friday 22 June. However, the departmental helpline and the special arrangement that I made for handling queries from Members are still available.
There is no further need for me to make regular statements to the Assembly as I have done since the disease first hit Northern Ireland in February. Therefore this is the last such statement unless the disease situation dictates otherwise.
It is to be hoped that Northern Ireland is now coming towards the end of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis. It is therefore crucial that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development refocus its energy on other important objectives. In the next six months, as the problems associated with foot-and- mouth disease recede, I will concentrate on a recovery plan for the agrifood sector, taking account of both national developments of interest to Northern Ireland and the outcome of the work of the vision group. That group met again yesterday, and its work will continue over the summer. I expect to receive a report from the group in September which will take account of issues arising from foot-and-mouth disease.
Further work will be done during the final phase of foot-and-mouth disease, but the Department’s handling of the outbreak will be scrutinised through external review. This will dovetail with any equivalent review in GreatBritain, and the Department will wish to liaise with the authorities in Dublin to ensure that cross-border lessons are also taken into account. I will make a further announcement on that in due course.
I will also turn my attention to achieving low-incidence status for beef exports. The difficulties that Northern Ireland still faces on that front should not be underestimated. Confidence remains low in Europe, and much will depend on the outcome of the Department’s testing regime as it moves again into top gear to reduce the number of tests undertaken for foot-and- mouth disease purposes.
Success in that endeavour will depend on farmers’ cattle identification and herd records being in good order. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will give whatever help it can, but ultimately Northern Ireland farmers must demonstrate that they have reliable herd records and cattle traceability. I urge farmers to turn their attention to that as soon as possible.
The Programme for Government introduced the concept of rural proofing in Northern Ireland. Over the coming months we need to flesh out that idea so as to appreciate how the concept will work.
My Department will presently roll out the rural development strategy and its proposals for the Peace II programme, which will include consultation. I look forward to seeing the proposals that will emerge from the community.
Together with the North/South Ministerial Council, the Department will be developing issues with a strong North/South dimension. In particular, animal health will be the focus of further work. We also need to work with the authorities in Dublin to agree the most productive approach to the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP), so that I can integrate it in the development of the United Kingdom negotiating stance.
We have been giving much thought to our forestry policy in recent months. I hope to present our draft proposals to the Committee and the Assembly after the policy review.
I have attempted to set out my main strategic objectives for the months ahead. Additionally, a massive amount of work is daily being undertaken by the Department. As we move out of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis, staff will be returning to normal duties. We will pursue all the objectives in the Department’s business plan with our customary energy. In particular, we must step up our efforts in tuberculosis and brucellosis control, and we must tackle the substantial backlog of BSE testing in cattle.
I assure the House that as well as focusing on relevant agrifood sector matters, I will be paying considerable attention to the problems in the fishing industry. At present, those problems are considerable, and more work must be done before the crucial Fisheries Council meeting in December.
I would like to end on a cautionary note. The fact that we escaped the epidemic that occurred in GB was due to a great deal of hard work and sacrifice by everyone in the industry. It would be disastrous if, having gone through all this, we were to drop our collective guard prematurely and foot-and-mouth disease were to recur here. Although we are relaxing our controls in a proportionate way in response to the improvement in our situation, it is important that we continue to adopt the fortress mentality that has served us so well. The foot-and-mouth virus is still circulating just a few miles away, across the Irish Sea. The controls we have set up at ports, airports and farm gates will continue to be necessary for some time.
I will end by expressing my personal gratitude to the Assembly for its assistance and support during the foot-and-mouth disease crisis. I also want to express my gratitude to the industry and to the public for their co-operation and forbearance over the past four months. The fact that we managed to escape the worst of the outbreak was due to the co-operation of Government, industry and the public. It has been a difficult period for all of us, and the effects of foot-and-mouth disease will be with us for some time. It was gratifying that we were able to work together so effectively in the industry’s best interests.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: It is certainly gratifying that we do not have this disease to the same extent as they do in the rest of the UK. Does the Minister agree that, given the serious announcements and fresh outbreaks in various parts of the UK, we need to be even more careful in guarding our ports as the summer months approach? As we have been able to stop the disease from getting a grip on Northern Ireland, it would be terrible if, given the summer traffic, there were to be any let-up in the very successful way that the ports have been guarded. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that.
Can the Minister tell us how much money has been paid in compensation during this time, and how much remains to be paid? What were the findings as regards fraud in this matter? I understand that the permanent secretary made a report on this matter in which he cited a view among officials that a strong stand had not been taken on this issue.
I would like the Minister to comment on why officials thought that. If everything had been all right then there would have been no need for that statement to have been made. That issue needs to be clarified.
I welcome the fact that the Minister is going to move on the issues mentioned, especially on the fishing industry, which is in a great plight. I am glad that she is going to concentrate her efforts on that matter.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Dr Paisley for his remarks and questions. I agree with Dr Paisley that we need to maintain precautionary measures and vigilance at the ports, particularly as the holiday season approaches and more visitors come here. We will do that; we will make sure that every precaution is taken at the marinas as well.
We have paid out £7 million so far in direct compensation, and £0·5 million remains to be paid.
Fraud is being investigated in the same way as in other years. The first advance payments of the sheep annual premium (SAP) scheme are, as a rule, paid in early July. Farmers who have submitted subsidy claims which require clarification, further information or which are being queried, will receive letters from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to that effect in mid-July.
Dr Paisley may be aware that information on the culls in Northern Ireland, GB and the Republic has been sought by the European Union. The information will be supplied in the second half of July, when it is complete.
The report by the permanent secretary of the Department, was also mentioned. That report was issued to me on foot of an investigation carried out in response to an allegation made by a Member of the Assembly that a blind eye was being turned to fraud in south Armagh. The permanent secretary had an investigation carried out, and he then made a report to me. The summary at the end of that report states:
"In conclusion, therefore, this review bears out that there never was any question of a blind eye being turned to fraud and that normal procedures will apply in relation to subsidy claims."
That is the position.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I thank the Minister for her statement and welcome her intention to permit the reopening of livestock markets in the next few weeks. In relation to the live export of sheep from 1 July, some buyers have expressed the concern to me that they will be unable to avail of the opportunity to get sheep away for export. In the light of that, we could do with buyers from the Irish Republic buying sheep at the collection points that we have already set up. Our farmers would therefore be able to avail of the higher price for sheep over 21 kilos. It would be a good idea for the buyers to purchase the sheep at the collection points rather than to go around the various farms. Perhaps the Minister could give that her earliest consideration.

Sir John Gorman: Will the Member please put his question?

Mr Billy Armstrong: The question is that we want the Minister to consider the proposal that buyers should come to the collection points to buy sheep.

Ms Brid Rodgers: As usual, Mr Armstrong is trying to push the door a little bit further in. I established collection points at marts to facilitate the farmers who had difficulty, for example, in bringing three or four lambs the whole way from County Down to Derry. Those collection points meant that farmers could bring their fat lambs there, which was convenient.
Mr Armstrong seems to be suggesting that farmers, from the South or elsewhere, should be able to come to these collection points and buy sheep. I received a letter from him on the subject this morning, but I have not had time to study it. I will consider that possibility, but it looks suspiciously like opening the marts for sheep sales. I must inform him that, although I am looking seriously at the question of reopening the marts — because I recognise the problems of the mart owners and farmers — the first step will be to open them for cattle sales. Sheep sales will happen later, because we are still somewhat nervous of the problems with the flock. I will be guided by advice from veterinary experts. I will examine Mr Armstrong’s suggestion, but I am not holding out much hope that it will be possible to implement it.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for her "state of the agricultural nation" statement. I am delighted that the threat of foot-and-mouth disease is receding. I welcome the announcement that the Department will focus its attention on other problems affecting the industry, not least in fishing and forestry, which are germane to my constituency.
I would like the Minister to explain some points in more detail. We welcome the opening of the livestock marts, but will she tell us which animals will be allowed to be processed through the marts, in what order and when?
In addition, is the Minister aware that there is a charitable fund, called the Addington Fund, which assists farmers in GB? Although it is a private charitable fund, it receives public and private donations. Can she ensure that Northern Ireland farmers have access to it to obtain funding from it?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I hope to open the marts for cattle and pig sales in the next few weeks. The best guesstimate that I can make for this is mid-July. At that stage, they will not be open for sheep.
The Addington Fund is a private fund for the assistance of farmers. I understand that Northern Irish farmers have already received some assistance from it. Because it is a private fund, it is not a matter for Government. However, I understand that it has been operating through the Ulster Farmers’ Union and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers’ Association (NIAPA). It is outside the remit of Government, but it has provided some help to farmers who were beleaguered and required financial assistance.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s lengthy statement, which mentioned future plans and the vision group. The possibility of the marts reopening for cattle sales in mid-July will be welcomed in Fermanagh, which exports nearly all its cattle.
What is being done to ensure that we have learned the lessons of foot-and-mouth disease? What action has the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development taken to ensure that the British Government put in place measures to prevent future outbreaks which, as in this case, could be followed by the movement of the disease into Ireland?
What are the restrictions on animals bought in the South to be used for breeding in the North?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I expect that the British Government will carry out their own review of the episode to find out how it happened and what lessons can be learned from it. There will be a ministerial meeting next Wednesday between the regional Ministers and the new Minister of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Margaret Beckett. I have no doubt that those issues will be discussed.
A subgroup of the vision group is looking at the lessons we can learn from foot-and-mouth disease and will report to me in September. I intend to establish a review of the crisis outside the Department.
Breeding animals that come in from the Republic must have veterinary certification. That matter must be discussed, and my officials are in discussions with officials in the Republic about all matters, including that one.

Mr David Ford: I welcome the Minister’s statement. It appears that if she will not be back here in the autumn answering questions on foot-and-mouth disease, she will be here to talk about animal health, forestry, fisheries and rural proofing. I look forward to hearing some detail on those points, which have been sadly neglected in recent months.
What is the full remit of the external review of the Department’s handling of foot-and-mouth disease? Specifically, what is the earliest date that it will consider? Will it include, in particular, the work of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in inspecting the ports before the diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease in GB in February? The issue is not just the handling of the disease when it arrived, but the failure to prevent its arrival.
The Minister mentioned the resources for the serology testing and hinted that it was to end soon. What is the present basis — not the historic pattern — on which the serology tests are being carried out? How are farms selected for that testing? What is the level of testing? Has she plans to wind it down soon?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have just announced the external review, and I have not looked at it in detail. The details have yet to be decided, but I will obviously want it to take account of all aspects of foot-and-mouth disease. It would be a useless exercise if we looked at only some parts of it. We will look at all the aspects, including the precautions at the ports that Mr Ford mentioned.
We are now in the final stages of the serology testing and strategic targeting of other areas that we want to investigate. We have finished testing in the Sperrins, the Mournes and the Glens of Antrim, which were the areas of greatest concern. We are continuing to test in the lowland areas and will take a significant number of samples there. I cannot go into every detail as I am not a veterinary expert, but we test a significant number of samples. In the areas that I first referred to, we have sampled 10% of sheep. Considering there are three million sheep in Northern Ireland, that is a large number.
We will continue the testing for epidemiological information. I will let Mr Ford have further detail from the experts, should he require it, but that is our general position.

Mr Gardiner Kane: I too welcome the Minister’s statement and her response concerning the proposed reopening of our livestock marts. That will be a major step forward for the farming community and the agriculture industry.
Will the Minister undertake to remove the 20-day holding period? That has been an obstacle to the supply of livestock among farmers. Does she accept the impracticality of that period for exporting live cattle from the Province?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am aware that the 20-day holding period causes difficulties, but I must also remind the House that the free and frequent movement of sheep in the initial stages of the disease created a huge problem. It was virtually impossible for us to identify where the virus was present, and our reaction to it was delayed.
We will consult the industry and all stakeholders on how we deal with the problem of moving sheep. Sometimes I fear that when we are out of the woods and things begin to look better, people will forget how bad it was and how bad it could have been. We cannot ignore the fact that the very frequent movement of sheep made it difficult for us to establish where they were or where the infection was.
In answer to Mr Kane, I am aware of the problem, and we will look at what can be done. Whatever we do, we must ensure that we are not faced with such a problem again and that the industry is protected. A balance must be found between the need to enable the industry to operate and the need to ensure that we are not threatened by another disease with such negative implications for agriculture.

Mr James Leslie: I am pleased that the Minister feels able to move on from foot-and-mouth disease and return to achieving low-incidence BSE status. That seems to have assumed some of the characteristics of the quest for the Holy Grail.
I am sure the Minister is aware that the new and more rigorous European Union beef labelling regulations come into force in January 2002. I understand that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development does not intend to introduce them into Northern Ireland legislation until at least the end of the first quarter of 2002.
Does the Minister agree that this new regime of labelling should eradicate the possibility of imported beef’s being in any way labelled as Northern Ireland produce? That possibility could compromise the traceability scheme. Can the Minister give the House an undertaking that she will introduce the new and more rigorous regulations as soon as possible after 1 January 2002?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I assure Mr Leslie that we will implement the beef labelling regime as soon as possible, and I take his point about its importance. However, it will be done in stages.

Mr P J Bradley: I welcome the Minister’s statement and share her hope that this will be the last special statement on foot-and-mouth disease. The achievement of the Minister and her team — from Dundonald House through the offices of the veterinary officers to the field — is all the more praiseworthy when the outbreak is still rampant in GB. Announcements of 22 outbreaks in the last seven days say it all.
I welcome the broad content of the statement and look forward to returning the agriculture industry to profit.
How important does the Minister believe North/South co-operation was in tackling foot-and-mouth disease throughout the island?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr Bradley for his comments and his question. North/South co-operation was important during the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic. An example of it is that, after the success of the regionalisation bid, my officials will meet their counterparts next Wednesday to review any issues regarding the resumption of trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The Republic’s co-operation during the epidemic was important, as was its support for our regionalisation bid.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement and recognise the part played by her and her Department in curtailing foot-and-mouth disease. Turning to cattle traceability and identification, the need for records to be in good order and the achievement of low-incidence BSE status, may I suggest that the Minister undertake to change the ear-tagging and identification scheme? The Minister will be aware that Northern Irish beef is tagged as being UK sourced. I propose that when marketing Northern Irish beef in future, the UK tag should be changed to a Northern Irish tag. Does the Minister agree?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr Murphy for his question. We do not have any control over being part of the member state of the United Kingdom. We might wish it to be otherwise; I might wish it to be otherwise, and so might Mr Murphy, but the fact is that the member state is the United Kingdom, and European regulations dictate that ear tags must show that beef is sourced in the United Kingdom. Cattle can be classed as belonging to the Republic of Ireland or to the United Kingdom, and in our case, whether we like it or not — and some of us do not like it but we must accept it until there is consent for change — we are in the United Kingdom. Therefore the ear tags must show that. However, there is nothing to prevent the industry here, when marketing its beef and produce, from agreeing on a marketing label that would be different from the ear tags. The label could suggest something such as the food island initiative or Irish beef, because Irish beef — whether from North or South — is a marketable commodity. There is nothing to prevent private or commercial concerns from identifying beef with their own label for marketing purposes. However, under the EU regulations we do not have a choice about what is on the tags.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the Minister’s staunch defence of the Union. The Minister might now be a Member of Parliament as well, had she picked a different constituency. With her popularity in the farming community, that would have gone down very well.
I congratulate the Minister and her Department. I also congratulate the farming community, which can now receive a more upbeat and positive statement from the Minister. The Minister has said that certain measures will remain in place. Can she then tell the House if she is giving the green light to a return to normality for sport and tourism in the Province? Is the Minister content that those measures are adequate to protect Northern Ireland at this time? Has she made any progress towards consequential compensation, and how often does she raise that matter with the Government?
With whom is she raising the matter, and what does she expect the response to be? What consequential compensation does she expect to secure for those who have been drastically affected by the ravages of foot-and- mouth disease?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr Paisley for his questions. First, I would like to make it clear that I was not defending the Union; I was reluctantly accepting the status quo because we recognised the principle of consent in the agreement that we signed. However much I will try to get consent for what I want, I accept the status quo for the moment. I hope that we can continue to work together until we convince people like Mr Paisley that we might be better off in an all-Ireland state, a member state which we often look to with envy in our dealings with Europe.
With regard to a green light for a return to normality in sport, the Executive’s guidelines should be amended shortly to give a qualified green light. We are not over the threat from GB, but we are over the threat in the North. Given that fact, in the next week we will issue further guidelines that will enable people to take a common-sense approach to angling and other sports. If a person has not been in contact with live animals, he will be able to go ahead with the sport. We will be issuing clear guidelines in the next few days.
Consequential compensation is being dealt with by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Department of Finance and Personnel. Discussions about that are ongoing with the British Government. We will be meeting the regional Ministers and Mrs Beckett next week. I will be anxious to hear what the position is, and I will be pressing for Northern Ireland to get a fair share of any consequential compensation being considered by the Treasury.

Mr Jim Wilson: I hope that the Minister will not mind my saying that we do not expect to hear from her again on this matter for a long time. I share other people’s concerns about the marts. Will the Minister assure me that someone will see the process through to the end if the reopening of the marts is going to be phased and is not going to begin for some weeks? Some mart owners may not be back in business until the autumn. I hope that she shares my concern that the person at the end of the process will be able to reopen the marts, because they have all been closed for a long time.
The angling estate that is managed by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is open, with the exception of one or two difficult locations. However, will the Minister have regard for the fact that our rivers are still inaccessible? Even if she announced today that the situation were about to change, there would still have to be lengthy consultation between angling clubs and farmers that might go on into the autumn. I hope that it rains during the summer, although others will have a different view, and they will probably get their way.
When the water levels are very low, the slightest import of pollutant can be catastrophic. Anglers are the best policemen of the rivers, and the sooner we get them back out on the rivers where they can watch out for pollutants, the better. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Mr Wilson for his comments and for telling me that he hopes not to be hearing from me for some time. I hope that he is right.
A phased process for reopening of the marts means that, by necessity, the introduction of sheep sales into the marts will be at the end of the queue rather than at the beginning. I said in response to Mr McGrady’s question — and he is not here at the moment — that the reopening of the marts would take place by mid-July. That might have been a little optimistic. It will probably be closer to the end of July, although it is difficult to be precise. Cattle sales will be the first to be introduced, then pigs and, further down the line, sheep. Members will understand the reason for that.
In relation to rivers not being accessible to anglers, in the Executive’s most recent guidelines I stated that angling could proceed again provided that anglers were not in contact with farm animals. That will clearly have to be discussed with the angling clubs and local farmers. It is a matter of applying common sense, and I will be issuing further guidelines.
In the Strule River area, for instance — which I have come to know fairly well in the last four or five weeks — there are many angling clubs. Only a very small portion of the river crosses farmland. For the most part, access to the river does not involve going through farmland or contact with farm animals. Common sense is required, and I take the point that anglers would be the first to become aware of pollution. It is very important that they can alert people to that.

Mr John Dallat: I too wish to thank the Minister and all her staff for their outstanding performance, and that includes the district councils, amongst others, which co-operated with the Department during the crisis.
My question is closely related to the concerns of other Members. The Minister is only too aware that our fledging rural tourism industry has, in general, been devastated by foot-and-mouth disease. Can the Minister assure the House that she will be doing everything possible to ensure that rural development and rural tourism in particular get the support that they so badly need in the months ahead?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I agree with Mr Dallat about the co-operation that we received from the local councils and other public bodies.
Under Peace II, my Department will have a rural tourism initiative. I am very anxious that people should plug into that and that local communities, councils and private enterprise come forward with projects that can boost, improve and exploit the natural resources that we have in Northern Ireland for the purposes of tourism.
Mr Dallat may be aware that the Northern Ireland rural cottage holiday initiative launch took place in County Down about two weeks ago. I was present at that. Again, I am very anxious to ensure that rural tourism is supported and that our assets are exploited, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that that happens.

Mr Boyd Douglas: I welcome the Minister’s statement, especially the section on the opening of the livestock markets. She said that, in the short term, this will involve cattle only and that sheep will be at the end of the queue. What is the Department’s position on the sale of rams, as the season for sales is approaching? It takes six to eight weeks for those planning the sales to organise catalogues, and several people have asked me about this. Can the issue be examined, and perhaps dealt with first, if the sale of sheep is to be pushed to the back of the queue?
Will sheep from which blood samples have been taken be able to be sold without further blood tests, or will pedigree sheep require further tests?

Ms Brid Rodgers: My officials have met representatives of the pedigree clubs to assess protocols to facilitate sales of rams and pedigree sheep. Those protocols will involve a clear blood test of all pedigree flocks involved in a sale. I hope to announce a timetable for pedigree sheep sales shortly, based on the discussions we have had and the protocols that must be put in place. Mr Douglas will agree that it is important to continue to take the necessary precautions.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I welcome the encouraging news we have had this morning. I am reassured that we are still keeping up our guard against the external threat. Having reached this stage, it is very important that we do not now suddenly import the dreaded threat once again.
Tyrone and Fermanagh have less favoured areas in greater acreage and queues of livestock for grazing — and we are well into the grazing season. Under the phased reopening of the marts, I appeal for the marts of Enniskillen, Clogher and Omagh, which are modern marts able to cater for any necessary health regime, to be given first-phase priority.
My second point relates to the traceability, credibility and promotion of our meat. We are now looking at how we can market our product in the future, and one of the greatest lessons we have learnt is about our inability to trace sheep accurately — look at the case of the 60 missing sheep. We now have a regime that is traceability proof, as far as is humanly possible. Farmers should be encouraged to ensure 100% accuracy. By the same token, there should be a penalty on those who thwart accurate traceability. It is very important to encourage farmers to help themselves, but we are asking the Minister to help them with marketing so that we can restore confidence to an industry that has been debilitated for six years.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The phased opening of the marts will relate to the type of mart, not to location.
In response to Mr Gibson’s other point about effective tracing, I agree that that is important. One of the problems we have had in trying to stay ahead of the disease, particularly in the initial stages, and since, has been the absence of effective tracing mechanisms for sheep, and we will have to establish them. In doing this we will take account of the views of the vision group and our external review and in consultation with the industry. I take the Member’s point.
I also agree that finding effective ways of tracing sheep will be a matter for co-operation between the Department and the farming community. That is how I would like to see our moving ahead. The issue will be discussed, and there will be consultation with the farming unions and the industry. We will take on board the proposals from the vision group and the findings of our review. I agree that we need to look at effective tracing.

Social Security Fraud Bill: Second Stage

Mr Maurice Morrow: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Social Security Fraud Bill (NIA 16/00) be agreed.
The Social Security Fraud Bill is an important piece of legislation which will make provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to provision made for Great Britain by the Social Security Act 2001. There has always been parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that is how it should be. People in Northern Ireland pay the same National Insurance contributions and taxes as those in Great Britain, and they should receive the same benefits.
Parity also enables us to use the same computer system in Northern Ireland and Great Britain for child support and social security, thus making it cost-effective.
However, parity is a two-edged sword. Rights to benefits must be matched by obligations to society. It is right that we should enjoy the same rights and benefits as people in Great Britain; however, it is equally right that we play our part in tackling the problem of benefit fraud.
Parity covers not only the content of the legislation but also the timing of its implementation. To ensure that the proposals are implemented at the same time as in Britain, the necessary powers must be available as soon as possible. The UK spends over £100 billion each year on social security. It is our duty to make sure that the system is secure from both fraud and error, so that the right money goes to the right people. That duty is reflected in the Department’s objective to reduce losses from fraud and error in social security benefits by 5% per annum over the spending review period April 2001 to March 2004.
In the United Kingdom, social security fraud costs at least £2 billion a year. That is clearly unacceptable, and we are determined to play our part in stemming the flow. The vast majority of people who claim benefits are honest, and it is unfair to them and to the taxpayers who foot the bill that a minority is cheating the benefits system.
A wide variety of fraud is perpetrated against the system, ranging from the opportunist, such as the person who does not tell us that he has started to work, to the highly organised criminal gangs involved in counterfeiting or stealing instruments of payment and running false identity fraud.
The Grabiner Report on the informal economy contained recommendations to combat benefit fraud. This Bill seeks to combat benefit fraud by putting many of those recommendations into action.
Before turning to the details of the Bill’s proposals, I will set them in context by illustrating the broad nature of social security fraud. Fraud takes place when people lie about their circumstances to gain benefit. There are many types of fraud. One is working and not declaring earnings, including those of a partner. Commonly this happens when a person claims to be unemployed but is working. Another type involves undeclared capital, when a person either fails to inform the Department of his assets or misrepresents their true value.
A third involves undeclared income from other sources. An example of this is where a person has unearned income or income from a private pension scheme. There is fraud involving family circumstances, where a person does not declare a partner who is living with him. Then there is residency fraud, where a person claims to reside at one address, but, in fact, lives at another. Identity fraud involves the hijacking of a real identity, or the creation of a false one, although with tougher checks on claims, the latter is becoming much more difficult.
It is estimated that in Northern Ireland about £73 million per annum is lost from public money due to benefit fraud.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair).
Fraud is not a small-time activity or a victimless crime, although it is often portrayed as such. Rather, it is more often a planned, calculated act, and it diverts a great deal of public money away from other objectives. The provisions of the Bill will help to reduce that loss, both through prevention and earlier detection, using the powers to acquire data from the private sector; and through deterrence, using the powers to remove benefit from persistent benefit offenders and the swift, effective punishment of collusive employers.
Turning now to the measures proposed by the Bill, one of the key recommendations in Lord Grabiner’s report on the informal economy was a power to take benefits away from people who persistently abused the benefits system. Rights to benefits must be matched by obligations to society. If we are to restore the public’s confidence in the social security system, we must deter hard-core benefit cheats by getting across a strong message that they cannot repeatedly commit fraud and still expect to be able to claim benefit again as if nothing had happened. For the vast majority of benefit cheats, their first conviction is their last, because the process of being interviewed under caution, appearing in court, being sentenced and finding themselves named in their local paper is an extremely salutary experience. However, there are hard-core cheats who simply refuse to learn their lesson and continue to offend. They must be made to realise that they cannot abuse the benefit system and steal from the rest of society with impunity.
This Bill provides that those convicted of benefit fraud will be warned that a further conviction within three years would mean that they could lose benefits for a period of 13 weeks. This would happen when they defrauded virtually any social security benefit. These are known as disqualifying benefits. However, the sanction itself will apply to a smaller range: the sanctionable benefits. We will not apply the sanctions to benefits that are specifically for children (child benefit and guardian’s allowance) or to those which meet the extra costs of disability (disability living allowance and attendance allowance). Nor will we sanction retirement pension, as research has shown this benefit to be virtually free of fraud.
The measures are intended to be tough, but, as with other sanctions in the social security system, they include fallback provisions to protect the most vulnerable — those people and their families who rely on income- related benefits. People on income-related jobseeker’s allowance will be able to apply for help under a hardship scheme. If their other circumstances are not such as to protect them from hardship, they will be paid at a rate which reduces the offender’s personal allowance by 40%, or 20% for cases of particular interest: for example, where a member of the household is seriously ill. Benefits for the rest of the household will be unaffected. For people on income support, access to such a scheme would be automatic. Housing benefit would remain in payment, as would access to other benefits such as milk tokens and free school meals.
The scheme closely mirrors the hardship scheme that already operates for labour market sanctions, a scheme which has been tried and tested. We believe that this scheme is fair in that it strikes the right balance between, on the one hand, a punishment which brings home the point that fraud will not be tolerated, and on the other, ensuring that offenders, and their families in particular, do not suffer unduly.
I should stress that the main aim of this measure is deterrence. We do not want to see it being applied to large numbers of people: indeed, quite the reverse. The fewer people who are subject to the sanction, the better, because that means it is having the intended deterrent effect.
A second key to cracking benefit fraud identified by the Grabiner Report is the need for access to independent information about a claimant’s financial and other circumstances. Fraud is committed by people telling lies or concealing the facts about their circumstances. If we are to succeed in rooting fraud out of the system, we need to be able to check what people tell us with third parties. For example, if we suspect that a person is claiming benefit and is concealing his earnings from work, cross-checking the information that we hold with additional independent sources, for example banks, would help to establish the fraud.
The Bill includes measures to allow officers authorised by the Department or the Housing Executive to require information from specified private- or public-sector organisations, including banks, building societies and credit reference agencies, where we have reasonable grounds for suspicion. I must stress that these powers do not provide carte blanche to pry into people’s bank accounts. The Bill is clear on that, and it will also be made clear in a publicly available code of practice that will set out how the powers will be used.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
First, it is important to say that what constitutes reasonable grounds will vary from case to case, and for that reason it is not appropriate to put specific conditions into the legislation. There would be reasonable grounds for suspicion where there were reasons to believe that a person was receiving or claiming benefit fraudulently. Staff authorised to use these powers will need to analyse their records and note their suspicions. They will always consider whether there could be an innocent explanation for any circumstances. Examples of what would be taken into account are tip-offs from members of the public, suspicious behaviour on the part of a claimant or unsatisfactory identity documents.
Objective statistical evidence that a person was disproportionately likely to commit fraud would also provide reasonable grounds. For example, we know that people who have committed benefit fraud before are more likely to do so again. I stress that the evidence would need to be objective, and obviously these powers would not be used on grounds such as community background, race or sex.
The Bill also seeks to tackle the problem of housing benefit being paid on empty properties. In some cases, that is a calculated fraud, where the address is being used to support a claim for income support or jobseeker’s allowance under a false identity — known in the trade as a "giro drop". In others, the fraud is committed by the landlord, who does not tell the Housing Executive that the tenant has moved out. In other instances, the tenant simply abandons the property without bothering to tell the landlord or the Housing Executive. To help to put a stop to this and other types of fraud, the Bill will enable us to obtain information from the utility companies about abnormal levels of consumption that may indicate benefit fraud.
I have already referred to the problem of people working and claiming benefit. We have looked beyond the problem itself to one of its major facilitators — employers who are more than happy to have the state subsidise their wage and National Insurance bills by colluding with their employees in committing this type of benefit fraud. They are taking advantage of their workforce by denying them proper terms of employment, and they gain unfair advantage in the market by paying low wages. That is unfair competition against honest employers.
The prosecution of employers who have colluded in benefit fraud can be lengthy and costly and may not always be the most effective way of tackling this problem. Obviously, we will continue to prosecute the most serious cases. For the less serious cases, the Bill allows the application of a swift civil penalty that will bring home the message that operating in the informal economy carries a high price and will not be tolerated. That will strengthen the ability of the Department and the Housing Executive to bring to book employers who collude with their employees in social security fraud. The measures provide for an administrative penalty of between £1,000 and £5,000 to be paid by a colluding employer as an alternative to prosecution. The penalty would be subject to the same safeguards that apply to administrative penalties for claimants — the employer will have the option of having the court decide the case. If an employer accepts the penalty as an alternative to going to court, he has up to 28 days to change his mind.
It is estimated that up to 70% of fraud occurs not at the start of a claim, but during its currency, when changes of circumstances which affect benefit entitlement go unreported.
Current legislation fails to impose a watertight duty on claimants to report changes and is therefore inadequate for cases where payment is made directly to a bank account and where no signed declaration of unchanged circumstances is available. We are reforming those powers to ensure that they are effective and to give a clear message that such sins of omission are crimes nonetheless and will be punished.
Finally, the Bill contains tidying-up measures that will clarify the legislation that enables prosecution when claimants deliberately fail to report changes of circumstances. It will allow the Department and the Housing Executive to act together to offer administrative penalties in place of prosecution in cases involving housing benefit as well as Department for Social Development administered benefits. It will strengthen arrangements for the supply of information by the Housing Executive to the Department, or to the Secretary of State for Social Security, by specifying in directions rather than regulations what information is required.
The provisions of the Bill are a measured response to the problem. Considerable care has been taken to ensure that the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Bills are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
In conclusion, the Bill contains important measures that will significantly reduce fraud in the benefit system and thereby restore the public’s confidence in it. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Today’s debate need not have taken place. It is only taking place because accelerated passage was denied to the Bill a few weeks ago. We are here to commence a gestated period of debate because of that denial. I had hoped that accelerated passage would have been given to the Bill, because it is important that the Assembly offer an immediate response to an immediate and ongoing problem.
Millions of pounds are lost to the Social Security Agency every year because people defraud it. Of course, there are people who do not claim their benefit, but the fear of fraud and the concerns about it are a problem that must be dealt with. It is very disappointing that this Bill cannot go through the House quickly, so that we send out all the right messages to those who are trying to steal money from other people’s pockets.
It is unfortunate that a certain party decided to oppose accelerated passage. However, given that the Assembly has chosen the normal course for passage of this Bill, I am amazed that that party is not even here today. They are not even here to give us their view. People will watch the gestated period of Committee proceedings and further readings carefully to see whether that party is interested in making a major contribution to change this Bill. The party’s denial of accelerated passage was more to do with political opposition to the Minister and political opposition to catching the fraudster than a constructive approach to the Bill.
It is important that the Assembly send out all the right messages when tackling fraud — and that it sends out a clear signal on this matter. Some people may be reluctant, but it is absolutely necessary that we do that. The Minister said that the Bill is about protecting the vulnerable. That is a key issue. It is about protecting those who are having their rights taken from them. It is crucial that everything is done to ensure the delivery of benefit payments to the right people at the right time, all the time.
The Social Security Fraud Bill is one way to protect the vulnerable from losing their rights. I understand that £73 million has been lost because of social security fraud in Northern Ireland.
That is an amazing amount of money, and it could have been used for a far greater good than going to false claimants. It is unfair to honest claimants and to the public in general that a small minority of claimants can cheat the system and make big money.
The Assembly is aware of the problem of fraud; Mr Billy Bell highlighted some of those problems in a previous report. I am all the more amazed, therefore, that the Assembly should try to slow the passage of the Bill, after his investigation into fraud in the social security system. Just today, Members received a press release on the Northern Ireland Audit Office’s report on the agency’s management of social security debt collection and fraud. It highlights the need for active encouragement for work to tackle fraud in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, any delay in the tackling of fraud will cost Northern Ireland hundreds of thousands of pounds every month.
As the Minister said, parity is a two-edged sword. It is correct that we should enjoy the same rights and benefits as people in Great Britain, and it is equally right that we play our part in tackling benefit fraud. With the right to benefit comes the responsibility to tackle those who defraud the benefits system. I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister about that.
I also agree with the Minister that the Bill is not draconian, nor is it a great axe that he looks forward to wielding. It is a deterrent. It is important that people keep things in perspective. The Bill will help the Department to prosecute the more serious cases, and it will deter those who see other people cheating the system from thinking that they can get away with it too. The Minister made it clear that the Department hopes that the deterrent value will be such that it will not have to use those powers repeatedly. The ability to check information will itself be a significant deterrent to would-be fraudsters. The Bill allows for the checking of the information that a claimant must give; it does not ask for anything special.
I would like to refer to clauses 1 and 2. Fraud takes place when people knowingly lie about their circumstances in order to obtain benefit. They have not made a mistake; they deliberately try to mislead the Department. By definition, a person who engages in fraud will not volunteer the truth. People lie about whether they have a job. There should be a deterrent to stop people lying about that.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member may be under some misunderstanding about the passage of the Bill. He said earlier that, with accelerated passage, this debate need not have taken place. That is not correct. With accelerated passage, there would still be a Second Stage; it is only the Committee Stage that would not take place. The purpose of this Stage is for discussion of the general principles of the Bill, but the Member is now moving into a discussion of each clause. That is properly the function of the Committee Stage, which will now take place, according to procedure. This is a debate about the broad principles of the Bill.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Speaker for that direction. I will stick to the broad principles contained in clauses 1, 2 and 15.

Mr Speaker: Order. The debate is about the broad principles of the Bill, not the broad principles of clauses 1 and 2.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The Bill is an attempt to clamp down on people who lie about whether they have a job, whether they have savings, whether their partner works and about who they are and where they live. It is essential that the Department have the strength to investigate those matters to find out whether the information is correct and to ensure that the right money goes to the right people at the right time.
I also look forward to seeing the code of practice and the safeguards contained in it. It is essential that the Department attempt to ensure that social security money goes to the right people, not to those who try by mischief to defraud the Department.
If the powers to obtain information are not introduced in Northern Ireland at the same time and date as in the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland will lose a vast amount of money. I have read that that loss could be as much as £400,000 a month. It will be interesting to find out whether that loss is incurred if we do not put this instrument in place at the same time as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Other important clauses in the Bill would make it an offence to fail to notify a change in circumstances. Will the Minister tell the House how many cases last year could have been affected by the absence of the Social Security Fraud Bill, particularly in regard to those matters outlined in clause 15?
I will finish with an apocryphal story — or perhaps it is not an apocryphal one. Some time ago, a certain politician, it is believed, used a car under the motability scheme when that person ought not to have done so. After a television documentary, it appeared that some people’s concerns about motability fraud still had not changed. However, the prospect of a mayoral car was seen as a measure to prevent further motability fraud. That did not seem to do the trick, because yet another political party did not believe that that was the right strategy to tackle motability fraud.
Today, the House should send out a clear "No" to fraud and give the Department every encouragement and strength to tackle any attempt to prevent the right money going to the right people at the right time. Even though the legislation must go through a Committee Stage, I hope that the Minister can take encouragement that there are parties in the Assembly that are willing to back him in his fight to tackle fraud as it raises its head in the social security system.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I welcome Mr Paisley Jnr’s comments. He has spoken in support of what the Department for Social Development is trying to achieve. I will not go through a long winding-up speech. Mr Paisley Jnr asked how many cases could have been affected by the absence of a provision similar to clause 15. He is entitled to the most accurate answer that I can give him. Last year, there were 228 fraud cases involving payment by automated credit transfer, with the potential — and I emphasise "potential" — to be prosecuted. However, the absence of the provision contained in clause 15 precluded such action in those cases. Therefore the Department for Social Development will be better armed and better equipped to deal directly in cases of fraud when the Social Security Fraud Bill becomes law.
The code of practice is now available and will be in the public domain shortly. When I went before the Committee for Social Development to explain the different parts of the Bill, Members expressed their concern about the availability of the code of practice.
I am happy to confirm that the code of practice is in place and will be made available. I welcome the comments made by Mr Paisley Jnr and his wholehearted support for what we are trying to achieve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Social Security Fraud Bill (NIA 16/00) be agreed.

Department for Employment and Learning Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Product Liability (Amendment) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: I have had some indication that Mr Wells wishes to speak. However, he is not in his place, and I propose by leave of the Assembly to proceed.
Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Trustee Bill: Final Stage

Mr Mark Durkan: I beg to move
That the Trustee Bill (NIA 11/00) do now pass.
I will not rehearse the comments that I made during the Second Stage debate on the Trustee Bill. These proposals to reform the law on powers and duties of trustees have been widely welcomed by Members and users of trust law. The Bill will undoubtedly facilitate better administration of charitable and private trusts. It will help trustees and beneficiaries alike. In some respects, the changes are overdue as professional advisors drafting trust deeds almost invariably choose to include clauses along these lines.
The Bill has had an uneventful passage through the Assembly. No amendments have been tabled; however, there has been proper scrutiny. I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by members of the Finance and Personnel Committee in their consideration of these proposals at the early consultation stage and during the passasge of the Bill.
If the Bill is passed, its provisions will come into operation on a day appointed by my Department. I am unable to give an exact date at present but I see no reason to expect a delay. I commend the Trustee Bill to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Trustee Bill (NIA 11/00) do now pass.

Mr Speaker: There is time to move ahead; however, the understanding from the usual channels was that the debate on the Report of the Committee of the Centre: Commissioner for Children would take place this afternoon. It would be unfair to bring the matter forward at this time as the relevant Members are not present. That being the case —
12.00

Mr John Tierney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I spoke to the other parties, and I think that the Chairman — [Interruption] — perhaps not. He was here two minutes ago.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Mr Speaker, it was indicated to me very briefly by my Assembly Colleague that this matter could be brought forward, and we were asked to find some of the relevant people. However, that has been impossible, and there was no firm or fast agreement that the matter would be brought forward.

Mr Speaker: The speed and efficiency of the House this morning has been such that it has not been possible to sort the matter out and bring the business forward. The House will now, by leave, suspend, resuming at 2.30 pm with the debate on the Committee of the Centre’s report on a commissioner for children.
The sitting was suspended at 12.01 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Report of the Committee of the Centre – Commissioner for Children

Mr Edwin Poots: I beg to move
That this Assembly approves the Report of the Committee of the Centre on its inquiry into the proposal for a commissioner for children for Northern Ireland (2/00R) and calls on the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to take full account of the recommendations.
Why do we need a children’s commissioner in Northern Ireland? Children are one of the largest and yet most vulnerable groups in our society. One of the organisations giving evidence to the Committee said that too often children have no mechanism through which their voice can be heard. Unlike adults, they do not have a vote, a union or a complaints system to access. They are wholly dependent on adults to raise and deal with their concerns.
There are almost 500,000 children in Northern Ireland, and they represent 30% of the population. Although the vast majority of our children have a healthy, happy and secure childhood, we are all too familiar with the horror stories of neglect, abuse or exploitation of our children and young people. All too often, we read in the press about the tragic consequences of failures by systems to protect children. In many cases, the failure is as a result of a lack of co-operation and co-ordination between organisations.
Just a couple of weeks ago, the local newspapers screamed headlines of "Agencies Blasted Over Boy’s Death"; and "Tragic Teenager Failed By Systems". These headlines reported the tragic death of a 14-year-old Belfast boy who should have been in secure care accommodation. The magistrate in the case is quoted as having said:
"This court and the general public will want to know why Government agencies failed to protect this vulnerable young man and many other boys and girls".
The announcement in the House on 29 January by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of their intention to appoint a children’s commissioner for Northern Ireland was given a widespread welcome. It was welcomed as a step towards ensuring that our children can grow up in a society, safe from exploitation and abuse, where their rights are protected and where their needs are met.
After that announcement, the Committee of the Centre embarked on an inquiry to examine the proposal and consider the role and remit of a children’s commissioner. Over a six-week period the Committee listened to more than 13 hours of oral evidence and questioned 51 individuals from 27 organisations, including statutory and voluntary bodies. We also listened to the views of a group of 11 young people and what they thought of the proposal. We invited representatives from Wales and Norway to hear at first hand about their experience of a children’s commissioner. There were many diverse interests among those organisations, but they all had one thing in common — they all argued passionately in favour of having a children’s commissioner.
During the evidence sessions the Committee heard shocking and dramatic statistics about some of the most vulnerable groups of children in our society. These included children born in Northern Ireland who were described as being "destined to fail" and who needed support right from birth to help them to break that cycle.
We heard about the intolerable levels of physical and sexual abuse in our society, and we heard that in Northern Ireland three children are raped every week, and another 12 are indecently assaulted. The Committee heard about the number of children in the juvenile justice system. Last year, over 340 children between the ages of 10 and 17 were locked up in Northern Ireland. We heard that at any given time about 30 children are locked up in our two juvenile justice centres, and over 600 are subject to statutory supervision orders in the community. Why is that happening? Can we not do better?
In 1999, there were 2,324 children in public care in Northern Ireland. Sixty-five per cent of them are in foster care in people’s homes throughout Northern Ireland. I hold in highest regard those people who open their homes to children who have not had a good start in life to try to give them a chance. Many of the children will have experienced difficulties in their lives. They have the right to feel safe and protected from abuse and neglect.
We learned that approximately 11% of children in public care are in residential care. We also heard a very alarming statistic: one in five girls aged 16 to 18 will become pregnant within six months of leaving care.
We heard about children whose lives are affected by the criminal justice system because they or their parents have been involved in court proceedings. The children of prisoners seem to have received little attention in the past. Recent research in England and Wales shows that 63% of boys whose fathers have a criminal conviction will be involved in court proceedings by the age of 15. The figure rises to a dramatic 93% in cases where both parents have had criminal convictions.
We learned that 71% of young offenders and young men under the age of 21 given community sentences will have fathered one child. Forty-two per cent of them will have fathered two or more children. This is further compounded by the fact that 62% of those young men, by the age of 23, will have no further contact with their children.
The Committee heard about the problems faced by children in ethnic minority groups. This is particularly evident in the travelling community. For example, 18% of travellers are under five years of age, compared with 8% in the settled community. Fifty-three per cent of travellers are under 17 years of age. Infant mortality and physical disability rates are three times higher among travellers than among the settled community. They also suffer from higher levels of chronic illness.
It is estimated that there are 14,000 children with a disability in Northern Ireland. The term "children with a disability" refers to a large and varied group, often with different and complex needs. It was pointed out to the Committee that regardless of this statistic, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 does not apply to children under 16 years of age. The Disability Discrimination Act is being reviewed, and this group was cited as an example of where a children’s commissioner could make a difference. The commissioner could ensure that the needs of children with disabilities are taken into account.
There are 76,000 one-parent families in Northern Ireland, with approximately 145,000 children — almost one third of the children in our Province live in one-parent families. In 7% of those families the parent is under 20 years of age; they are little more than children themselves.
The Human Rights Commission argued for a commissioner to act as a watchdog for the rights of children. The Commission called for someone with status and respect to monitor the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and to cover every aspect of children’s lives. The Commission called for the children’s commissioner to have strong investigative powers.
The Equality Commission reminded us that children are not a homogenous group; there is a vast array of children, and they have multiple identities. As part of its approval of equality schemes, the Equality Commission identified a gap in the carrying out of direct consultation with children and young people. This was particularly evident for young people with learning disabilities. The Equality Commission argued strongly that there was no substitute for children being their own advocates as part of a direct consultation process.
Many organisations in the voluntary care sector came together under the banner of Putting Children First. This was co-ordinated by Child Care NI. This group has been campaigning for some time for a children’s commissioner in Northern Ireland and put a strong and convincing case to the Committee. Thanks to the co-ordination of Child Care NI, and Mrs Mary Cunningham in particular, the Committee was able to hear the views of 15 organisations during two days of evidence. They argued that children are our most valuable and, sometimes, our most vulnerable citizens.
They called for a children’s commissioner who would work not only with those in difficulties, such as those living in poverty, those who are abused, those who are in the care system or those in the juvenile justice system, but who would work with and for all children.
The organisations called for the commissioner to have strong powers to investigate all forms of abuse and gave examples of how he could take action on sexual abuse in children’s homes, bullying in schools or on behalf of children detained under mental health legislation. They highlighted the need for a holistic approach to strike a balance between parents’ rights and children’s rights and argued that he would need to consult parents and guardians on promoting children’s rights.
Several groups that work directly with children in care or in the juvenile justice system reported young people’s views on a children’s commissioner. They clearly want someone who will listen to what they say and do something about it.
The Committee met a group of young people, mainly in the 14 to 17 age range, at Magee College in Londonderry. The group from the north-west was brought together by the Western Young People’s Steering Committee, which is organised by the Western Health and Social Services Board. The young people were very forthright and wanted assurance that a commissioner would be someone with whom they could identify and communicate. Although the number of young people who gave direct evidence to the inquiry was limited, it highlighted to the Committee the absolute need, if there was ever any doubt, to involve young people in drawing up the proposals for a children’s commissioner.
While at Magee College the Committee also heard from the Derry Children’s Commission, an organisation made up of statutory organisations, including the council and health services board and voluntary and community groups that are working for children’s rights in the area. The group had very strong views on the role of a children’s commissioner.
The Northern Ireland branch of the British Association of Social Workers argued strongly for a children’s strategy here and for the children’s commissioner to be responsible for its implementation. The association saw the primary value of a commissioner as someone who could see the big picture and draw attention to the positive and negative aspects of practice.
The Guardian Ad Litem Agency and the Law Society of Northern Ireland joined forces to give evidence. They strongly welcomed the proposals for a children’s commissioner and highlighted some issues in their field that might be addressed by him.
One example related to article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under that article, children capable of forming views have a right to be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting them, and although that obligation is fully met in public law proceedings, it is not met in private law cases, such as contested custody hearings. They argued that a children’s commissioner could ensure that such areas were addressed and resolved.
The Assembly Ombudsman gave evidence to the Committee about the potential overlap between his office and that of the proposed children’s commissioner. He argued that acting as a champion for children should be the core role of a children’s commissioner, as it encompasses advocacy, research, monitoring and assistance with enforcement.
The Chairperson of the Health and Social Services Committee of the National Assembly for Wales told us of her experience. The Commissioner for Children in Wales has only recently been appointed, and it is too early to see results. However, there are valuable lessons for the Committee in how the consultation and appointment were carried out.
The innovative way in which young people in Wales were involved in the appointment of the Commissioner for Children particularly impressed the Committee. A group of 15 young people were directly involved in agreeing the assessment process and took part in the selection of candidates. After comprehensive training and guidance, those young people were invited to meet and interview all the shortlisted candidates. Two were then delegated to sit in on the formal selection panel.
It was most appropriate that the final evidence session was from the Ombudsman for Children in Norway, the first country to make such an appointment. Up to then, the Committee had listened to well-reasoned arguments and people’s hopes and aspirations for a children’s commissioner here. For the first time we were given an insight into how it worked in practice.
The Committee heard at first hand from someone who is tackling the problems that had been highlighted by others. One of the most interesting things about the session was that before it arguments had concentrated on the need to co-ordinate, monitor and enforce statutory services for children. In Norway, the Ombudsman also deals with those issues, but children set his agenda to a large extent. Many of the issues are more general cases of principle.
He highlighted recent concerns there about infections resulting from body-piercing, which is not regulated in Norway. Another example was the campaign to ban cosmetic surgery for 16- to 18-year-olds. The Ombudsman illustrated the type of issues he tackles with private companies:
"In Norway we do not have school uniforms as you have here. This means that we have one of the most expensive school uniforms in the world. You have to wear the right jacket, have the Nokia 3310, and wear the right shoes. Companies identify the most popular children in the school yard, who then receive free clothes for a few months. Advertising is not allowed in schools, but the children are used as indirect commercials."
As a result of that investigation the Ombudsman is about to publish a report on the commercial pressure on children. Censure by the Ombudsman is taken very seriously in Norway and can achieve very positive results.
The Ombudsman also examined the age of consent. Adults in Norway had been considering lowering it, but young people did not want that, and the Ombudsman drove forward their point of view.
Having listened to all the detailed arguments, the Committee strongly and unanimously supports the proposals for a children’s commissioner for Northern Ireland. It also supports the development of a comprehensive strategy for Northern Ireland and sees the appointment of a children’s commissioner as a core element of that. The Committee considered the role of the children’s commissioner in significant detail and made 35 recommendations in its inquiry report. I do not intend to go into those in detail, but a few of them are central to the appointment of the children’s commissioner.
The Committee heard many calls for the children’s commissioner to be independent, and the possibility of the post’s being part of an existing organisation was explored. We concluded, however, that the commissioner must be totally separate from all Government, departmental and public bodies. That would ensure a distinct identity and that any challenge or oversight function could be carried out independently of such bodies.
The Committee also concluded that the commissioner must have a broad remit for all children so that he can study all aspects of children’s lives and be a champion for them. That was described as "having a helicopter view" and "being able to see the big picture". By having that overview, the commissioner could draw attention to areas where there are gaps or a lack of proper co-ordination.
That role, however, must not extend to include interference in family life. The primary responsibility for children must remain with the parents. Government agencies or the commissioner should step in only when the well-being of children is threatened by the failure of parents to meet their responsibilities.
There was unanimous agreement among witnesses and Committee members that the commissioner’s role must include reserved matters. The commissioner must be able to ensure that children in the juvenile justice system receive their full rights. Some of the statistics mentioned earlier highlight the difficulties faced by children in this area and the enormity of the task to be tackled by the children’s commissioner.
The Committee also decided that the commissioner must have full powers of investigation, including the power to investigate complaints and initiate enquiries. As part of that, the commissioner should be able to compel the production of evidence, including the disclosure of documents, the power to enter premises and to subpoena witnesses. Similarly, the commissioner must be able to support children in court cases or to initiate cases on their behalf. However, the Committee was equally clear that those powers should be used strategically, only when all other avenues had been exhausted.
The most important people in the debate are children and young people. We must never lose sight of the fact that they are the reason for appointing a children’s commissioner. I have already mentioned the need for meaningful consultation with young people in drawing up the commissioner’s remit. When it comes to the appointment process, children and young people must be at the forefront of everyone’s mind. They must remain our primary focus. The primary criterion for the post of commissioner must be the ability to relate directly to children. That is more important than a qualification in law or social work.
In Norway, the first ombudsman was a psychologist, and the next was a children’s television personality — an entertainer. Several times in the evidence sessions we heard calls for the commissioner to be someone who is as much at ease when talking to nursery-school children as when addressing politicians.
How can we ensure that someone with that special quality is appointed? The Committee believes that the best way to do that is to have young people directly involved in the appointment process. When appointed, the commissioner must identify with children and listen to the issues that concern them.
We heard much during the evidence sessions about children’s rights. I am sure that most children do not understand a great deal about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, as someone said during the inquiry, children have a keen sense of what is fair and unfair. That is the language of rights that they understand; it is important to them that things are fair. Therefore when the commissioner is appointed, children must be able to feel that they know and can trust that person. They must feel that the commissioner is on their side and is someone who will ensure that they get a fair deal.
Although the commissioner must have teeth to act when necessary, he or she must also be able to promote the positive achievements and vision of children. As the Norwegian Ombudsman put it:
"People grow tired of you if you act as a watchdog that bites every day. If you are going to be a spokesperson for children, you must also represent the vision of children for the future".
I submit the report to the Assembly and invite Members to give it their full endorsement.

Mr Speaker: Given that this is a time-limited debate — with a limit of two hours — and that we must leave the usual amount of time for the Minister to respond, I am forced to ask Members to restrict their comments to not more than seven minutes. Even with that we may not get through all the Members who wish to speak. Therefore I appeal to those who can be more concise than seven minutes to oblige the House by doing so. I ask all Members who are speaking, including the Chairperson in his winding-up speech, to keep it to not more than seven minutes.

Mr Oliver Gibson: All Committee members were struck by the enthusiasm, genuineness and sincerity of the presentations. Without doubt, they proved the need for a commissioner for children and demonstrated that there is a failing in the present system. There is no means of dovetailing and co-ordinating the work of the various statutory and other agencies that try as best they can to deal with the small percentage of people whom one person described as being "destined to fail". The appointment of a children’s commissioner is seen as a means of breaking that cycle.
Not only was the case proven, but it was also made clear that the scope of a commissioner’s role should cover every child from day one to age 18. In cases where the person may have been in care or need additional help, the commissioner’s involvement should be extended for at least five years after that person becomes 18.
It was interesting to hear the different views. The present Ombudsman made the point that there should perhaps be a sharper focus on the role of a commissioner. However, the majority and strength of the evidence showed that the commissioner’s remit should be broadband and cover all aspects of children’s lives. Those recommendations are embodied in the report.
Childproofing legislation was also looked at, and the Committee made eight recommendations on the children’s commissioner’s remit for that area. The Committee debated whether that remit should extend to reserved matters. It recommends that the commissioner for children should have the ability to intervene in the juvenile court system and be able to advocate and raise areas of concern.
There was much discussion about how young people could be given a voice. It is generally felt that we all sometimes take the view that adults know best. However, the view that we should give children a voice came across very forcibly. Therefore we made a further eight recommendations on how a commissioner should develop a role for children.
We discussed how far a commissioner should be able to intervene in the legal system. We recommended that a children’s commissioner should have the power to intervene in legal cases so that the rights of the child could be fully considered. We also considered to whom the commissioner should be accountable. We felt very strongly that the commissioner should be independent. However, in a democracy we must decide where the commissioner should report. We decided that the commissioner should submit an annual report to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and report to the appropriate Assembly Committee. That seemed to be the only secure way to address the issue. We studied the independence of all bodies and organisations.
We also studied the criteria for making the appointment, and we made suggestions on that matter. If a children’s commissioner is appointed, the Assembly and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should turn their attention to the final important recommendation in paragraph 4.7.11.
"the commissioner for children should be given adequate resources to carry out the full remit. In setting the initial budget for the commissioner the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should take account of funding for Commissioners in other European countries bearing in mind any differences in size or population."
The amount of funding certainly varied from one country to the next, but there were suggestive indications in the evidence.
The appointment of a children’s commissioner is seen as a core element of a wider strategy that sets out a vision for the future of the children of Northern Ireland. I commend our report to the Assembly. I thank those who gave evidence, and our staff, who were very supportive and courteous. The report is worth sincere consideration by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Dr Joe Hendron: I congratulate Mr Poots and his Committee on this excellent report. Last December, in its report to the Assembly on residential and secure accommodation for children in Northern Ireland, the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee called for the appointment of a commissioner for children. Therefore the Committee welcomes the report from the Committee of the Centre. We now need to move speedily to introduce the necessary legislation.
One of the roles recommended for the commissioner in the report involves assessing legislation and submitting proposals and recommendations for change. That is laudable, but I would like the commissioner to have the power to ensure that the present legislation is fully implemented.
If the commissioner ensures that the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 is fully implemented, we will be going a long way towards resolving many problems facing the most underprivileged children in Northern Ireland.
I agree with most of the report. However, I would like to have some idea of the cost of implementing the 35 recommendations. In recommendation 19 the Committee suggests that the commissioner should have power to intervene in legal cases. As soon as I hear the word "legal" I get very nervous about costs.
There have been arguments for a minister for children. However, as has already been mentioned, such a person would be an integral part of Government, whereas an independent commissioner could provide children’s causes with much needed profile, as well as advise the Executive of their responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
My Committee strongly believes that the treatment of children and young people in adult psychiatric wards should cease. I wonder what mental health services are to be developed for 16- to 18-year-olds. Mr Poots raised that issue also. The rights of the child are paramount, especially those of the most vulnerable children, such as those going into care, those already in care or those coming out of care. It is wrong that trusts can place children in homes already operating at full capacity and where there is a shortage of appropriately trained staff.
Before planned admission, the relevant agency should complete a placement and risk analysis. A care plan for each child should include a protective strategy, approved by the registration and inspection unit, setting out action to reduce risk and taking into account the needs of the child. All of this activity would be under the commissioner’s remit.
I agree with the Committee’s findings that the role of the commissioner for children should extend to reserved matters, including the juvenile justice system. Mr Poots mentioned the little boy who lost his life recently. I recall that little boy and the magistrate’s comments. I pay tribute to resident magistrate, Mr Desmond Perry, who, with his colleagues, continually emphasises the need for collective responsibility for young people before the courts.
The report emphasises the need for communication with children in language that they understand, and we support that. The Chairperson of the Health and Social Services Committee of the National Assembly for Wales made the important point that the commissioner should have the opportunity to scrutinise how the police treat children and the policies that they employ towards children. Regardless of whether it is on the Falls Road or the Shankill Road, in Northern Ireland, England, Ireland or elsewhere, people who are in an unhappy environment — particularly vulnerable adolescents — have a habit of getting into trouble with the law. Therefore it is very important that a commissioner for children look into those matters. It is important also that a children’s commissioner should have powers of investigation, discovery and subpoena.
Finally, we are aware of the number of suicides in Northern Ireland. That can be only the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of young people in Northern Ireland who are unhappy and suffer from low self-esteem and depression and who are therefore very vulnerable. We look forward to the appointment of a children’s commissioner as soon as possible.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the report; it is a very good report. It was largely compiled, agreed, drafted and redrafted in the middle of an election campaign, and that was no mean feat for the Committee of the Centre. I commend the staff who helped us. I would also like to place on record my appreciation of the many groups who gave evidence to us. By and large, they were very professional in their presentations and well informed on the issues.
The process of taking evidence and exchanging views with those organisations has given the Committee knowledge of the issue that will stand it in good stead when examining the legislative proposals when they come from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
Some of the key recommendations or requirements for an effective children’s commissioner kept jumping out at us from the evidence that was given. Most of them are reflected in the report, and I will list what I regard to be some of the most important. The children’s commissioner should act as an independent watchdog for the rights of children. The commissioner should childproof existing and new legislation and policy for compliance with domestic and international human rights standards. The commissioner should be able to take cases in his or her own name or fund children to take cases where there has been a denial of children’s rights. The commissioner should be empowered to enter and seize any documents, and he or she should receive adequate resources to fulfil those functions. The commissioner should be able to intervene, where appropriate, in legal proceedings that may have implications for children’s rights. In response to Dr Hendron, costs should not be a factor here, as the protection of children’s rights supersedes any cost issues that might arise.
The commissioner should actively engage, and consult directly with, children and young people, and have all the necessary powers to undertake effective investigations into any aspect of children’s rights. He or she should encourage, resource and conduct research into children’s rights and should consult regularly with children’s rights organisations and monitor the delivery or denial of children’s rights for compliance with domestic and international human rights standards. The commissioner should also have the remit for all matters pertaining to children, including those matters at present reserved. He or she should be able to act as an advocate for children’s rights and a channel for children’s voices.
The commissioner should promote understanding and education of children’s rights. He or she should also have the necessary powers to compile information and statistics on children and produce an annual report on the state of children. The commissioner should promote a culture of children’s rights. The key themes emerging from all the evidence that we heard are that the office or post of children’s commissioner should have adequate powers and resources, and it should be totally independent, although accountable to the Assembly.
I commend this report to the Assembly. Most of the recommendations from the various groups are contained in the report. I have no doubt that the record of today’s debate will be studied by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That Office now has an opportunity to set a standard for others in the remit, powers and resources that it will propose to give to the children’s commissioner. I hope that it will make use of this report and that it will build upon it to ensure the creation of a children’s commissioner’s post that will effectively promote, protect and serve the interests of all our children. I recommend this report to the Assembly. Go raibh maith agat.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I support the motion. The Chairman of the Committee of the Centre must be congratulated for his comprehensive address. I will keep my remarks general.
Today is another important stepping stone on the path to the appointment of a children’s commissioner for Northern Ireland. It is also significant because of the consensus across the parties that was evident as we worked at the report on this necessary appointment. There may be differences regarding the role, responsibilities, duties and powers to be given, but there is general agreement that in the current climate it is important to appoint a designated commissioner or even a minister for children. That will ensure that the concerns, needs and opinions of children and young people affect the policies of all Departments, thereby improving their situation in a more meaningful and practical way.
The statistics read out by the Chairman of the Committee of the Centre leave one in no doubt that children are disadvantaged, abused and hurt in different ways, almost every day. This appointment is, therefore, long overdue. All the evidence and submissions that came to the Committee pointed out that this appointment should be open and transparent. They made it clear that the office should be independent, accessible and given adequate resources — financial and staffing — to carry out its duties without fear or favour.
It is also vital that children and young people from all backgrounds and situations are involved — although not necessarily in the actual appointment — in working with the commissioner in the implementation of the full range of duties and the development of the policies. That will ensure that childproofing takes place from the very beginning of a policy.
I refer to the recommendations on the roles and responsibilities — recommendations 9 and 14 — which Members can read for themselves. These outline the Committee’s wish that the commissioner should work to improve the means of communication with children and young people.
The postholder must be accessible to all children, not just those with major problems, so that there is a vehicle of advice and support for every child. Organisations such as Childline, NSPCC and Barnardos will confirm that children, like adults, can benefit from having a contact who takes time to listen to their problems. Most children approaching the commissioner will probably do so through the courts — as a result of juvenile justice cases, social services referrals or divorce and custody cases — but the commissioner should be open to everyone who needs independent, objective advice and information.
The powers and duties laid out in the recommendations focus on children’s rights, and they should prove to be a major step forward for children who find themselves, through no fault of their own, in care, detention, or suffering from mental trauma or illness caused by tragedy. Children do not recognise the difference between reserved and transferred matters, but that must not be allowed to affect their rights or prevent improvements to their situation. It is essential that we offer effective and efficient support in all situations. We must always remember that children are, first and foremost, children, and the fact that they are young offenders or victims of abuse or violence is secondary.
The recommendations also highlight the need for competent interaction between all relevant agencies. The commissioner could act as a co-ordinator so that children’s rights are paramount. For that reason, the commissioner for children should also be directly accountable to the Assembly, through the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, in order to ensure that all cases receive the utmost propriety. Good work with children augurs well for everybody’s future. The section on the appointment of the commissioner for children was considered carefully, in the light of all the concerns that were expressed. We hope that those concerns will be addressed. The Budget requirements of such an important post, with such a wide remit, must also be taken into account.
I thank my Colleagues on the Committee of the Centre and the Committee Clerks, who prepared the report, for all their hard work. I also wish to thank all the deputations who came to see us. They were most efficient and gave us much food for thought. It was a pleasure to work together on such an issue. I hope that the recommendations of the report will be considered and implemented.

Ms Jane Morrice: We welcome the publication of the report. It was a pleasure to see Committee members working together so constructively, and we congratulate the Committee on a valuable and timely document. We also applaud the Committee for taking evidence from key organisations, moving around the country and involving young people. That was a valuable process, and we hope that it will continue; it demonstrates what Members can do when they work together.
We agree that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should take account of the recommendations. The Women’s Coalition put forward its own private Member’s Bill on the issue. Many of the principles of our Bill are included in the report, so there is similar thinking. I look forward to the full implementation of the report’s recommendations by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
The role of the commissioner should be extended to cover children who are in receipt of post-care services, even if they are over 18. The commissioner should also be involved in the childproofing of legislation.
This role is particularly important. The Executive should be required to have all Bills that are likely to be relevant to children passed as of right to the commissioner. The commissioner should also have the right to ask for legislation that has not been automatically passed to him or her.
The Committee report also provides for the commissioner to make an annual report. We support this; we also suggest that the commissioner should have the power to make other reports as he or she sees fit. Such reports may contain recommendations for action by others. In particular, the commissioner should be able to report recommendations for compliance with the provision of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as ratified by the Government.
It would be useful if the Executive were to produce a code that sets out how the commissioner will be consulted. We strongly support the recommendation that the commissioner should also deal with reserved matters of juvenile justice. We are pleased that the Committee envisages a commissioner with adequate powers to investigate complaints, including the power to require disclosure of documents. This is a valuable recommendation; in fact, it should be the minimum standard for such offices. We lobbied for this standard when the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was being set up.
Similarly, the proposal to enable the commissioner to make strategic interventions in legal proceedings is very wise. I must commend the statistics that the Chairperson gave this afternoon — they were horrifying and disturbing, but they represent a valuable resource for policy-making. The fact that the children’s commissioner will be able to commission research on issues of concern, such as the number of children living below the poverty line, is very welcome. However, we should be careful that the children’s commissioner does not spend the money that the Executive should be spending on research. There is no doubt that valuable statistics are essential to a good policy on children.
The Committee of the Centre envisages an ambitious remit for the commissioner. That is to be applauded and has our support. However, we must be given guarantees that when this remit is agreed, it will command adequate resources to carry out the tasks effectively for our children. Members have stressed the need for the commissioner to play the pivotal role in a strategy for children. If the commissioner is to be linked to a wider strategy for children, that must be taken into account. We strongly recommend the development of a strategy for children.
In conclusion, the fact that we need and want a children’s commissioner is in no doubt. I am sure that the vote of the Assembly will prove that. As every Member has said today, this is long overdue. A commissioner must now be appointed as speedily as possible. We call on the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to advance its own legislation — or perhaps to seek to amend our Bill, as that would allow the process to dovetail — so that we can provide children and young people with this valuable watchdog as soon as possible.

Mr Roy Beggs: I support the motion. I found my participation in the Committee of the Centre on this report worthwhile and interesting. I thank all the voluntary organisations and everyone who provided evidence to the Committee. It was worthwhile and timely that in the early stages information from the organisations directly involved should become available and be brought together by the Committee. It is to be hoped that that information will have a major impact on the functions of our commissioner for children.
I will pick out a few issues that are particularly relevant and should be reinforced — issues to which I contributed in the Committee Stage. Recommendation 2 talks about extending the remit of the commissioner to cover all those under the age of 21. Several Committee Members have said that there is evidence of a need for continuing support for young people, particularly when leaving care. There is evidence of low educational attainment and high rates of pregnancy shortly after leaving care. A cycle may be developing, and attention should be given to that vulnerable group so that the community can continue to support it and help to break that cycle.
Recommendation 7 recommends giving the commissioner an ability to childproof legislation. It is very important that there should be interaction at an early stage, and the views of young people should be put before the Assembly or the relevant Committee. It is too easy to overlook the effect of legislation on young people, and giving someone this responsibility will assist in drawing the relevant facts to everyone’s attention.
Play facilities are almost completely overlooked in the planning process. There is little provision for green space for children, and little provision for quality play facilities, even in areas where hundreds of new houses are being developed. Developers are making large profits, and there should be a requirement, in the early stages, for space to be set aside for the young people who will live in those areas. I urge that when giving developers planning permissions, space should be set aside for play. It is of no benefit to deal with this later. It should be done at the beginning, so that people buying their houses know that a play facility will be built, and they cannot object later. Sometimes space is set aside and, subsequently, residents close to it decide that it is not in their best interests. It should be happening at the planning stage.
I am concerned about pre-school education. I have raised with the Minister my concern about the requirement for funding of pre-school groups that there should be at least eight children in the immediate pre-school year. The trouble with that is that smaller and rural communities will have no pre-school funding from the Department. I suggest that if we had a commissioner for children, that would not be allowed. Surely seven pre-school children can come together on a worthwhile basis and learn social skills. Six children, four children, what is the limit? It is not the number involved, it is the quality of the experience and education in that pre-school group that is important.
We talked about where the commissioner should highlight areas of research and where statistics are required. An important point is that the commissioner should not be doing everything himself. He needs to co-ordinate and give his views to all the other agencies to minimise duplication, so that everyone is working together, gathering the relevant information, and bringing benefit to everyone.
Initially I was shocked to find that, in Wales, young people were involved in the selection process. Most adults will find that strange, but after investigation I can see many benefits.
The main function of a commissioner is to reach out to vulnerable children. Unless a commissioner can communicate with those children and make them feel that he is acting in their interests, his level of professionalism or skills is irrelevant. What better way of establishing that communication than to involve young people? I will not stipulate exactly how they should be involved, but they should play a part in the selection process.
It is recommended that a commissioner’s term run for four years. According to the evidence received by the Committee, a one-or two-year term is not long enough a period in which to establish the office and network within the system. There was concern that a longer term could be disadvantageous if the right person were not selected at the outset. However, if everyone were satisfied with the commissioner’s performance, it would be sensible to extend the initial appointment. I hope that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will take this issue on board along with our many other recommendations.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Ms Patricia Lewsley: As a member of the Committee of the Centre, I support this report. I hope that the Executive will take full account of the Committee’s report and its work with regard to the commissioner for children. Our children need a strong advocate to act on their behalf. They are, as the Deputy First Minister pointed out, too often neither seen nor heard.
Despite the fact that there are 500,000 children aged 18 and under in the North, few Government structures have been put in place to promote their needs. Those needs are great, given the fact that 37% of children in the North live in families that earn less than half of the average national income. Many of our children’s services are poorly funded. Our education system does not provide equality of opportunity, particularly for deprived children, as a result of which far too many leave school without any qualifications. Children are abused at home and neglected in care, and our young people are often kept in Victorian conditions under the criminal justice system.
It is because of these problems that the announcement by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on 29 January this year of their intention to establish a commissioner for children was so welcome. After years of campaigning and getting nowhere under direct rule, those who worked with our children at the coalface finally found, in the devolved Administration, Ministers who would listen and act.
This proves that our new Government institutions are working, and that devolution is making a difference. I hope that all Assembly parties will do everything possible to preserve these institutions. Otherwise, if we return to the neglect of direct rule, such important initiatives as the children’s commissioner might be lost. All parties owe it to children to ensure that we do not face collapse in the coming weeks.
It is important that we get the details right when establishing a children’s commissioner. The Committee of the Centre believes that it has done that. We believe that a commissioner for children, along the lines suggested, would clearly reflect best practice and set an example for the rest of the world to follow.
We envisage several distinct roles for the commissioner. First, he would promote a culture of children’s rights through fostering education and acting as a source of information and advice. Secondly, the commissioner should act as an advocate for children — that means taking cases to establish children’s rights and checking that policies, practices and governmental procedures respect the rights of children. Thirdly, the commissioner should have full investigative powers.
A number of agencies are already engaged in the protection of children. It would make no sense for the children’s commission to act as an appeal body for all of these, or to duplicate their functions.
The commissioner should be able to help children when other people cannot, and should above all be able to investigate how other bodies and agencies handle complaints from children. In any case, if an agency has fallen down in its duty, the commissioner must be able to investigate that thoroughly and have all necessary powers to do so. Only if the commissioner has those powers will he or she be taken seriously.
Finally, it is critical that the commissioner is not limited to the devolved Administration. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are aware of the importance of ensuring that children in the criminal justice system are safeguarded, and they have invited the Northern Ireland Office onto the interdepartmental working group. It is vital that the Northern Ireland Office share in the devolved Administration’s vision of a strong, independent and powerful children’s commissioner.
The Committee of the Centre listens to Ministers, officials, statutory agencies and those working in the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to secure the rights of all children. As my other Committee Colleagues have done, I thank them for all their help. I am pleased to see that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is adopting the same inclusive approach and that, to this end, it has established an NGO forum.
It is important to listen before you act and not, as some have done, to rush into proposals that are not well thought through. I hope that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister listens to all that has been said here today, and I look forward to seeing it act for the sake of children and their future. I support the motion.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am delighted that we have finally reached this stage with regard to a children’s commissioner. It is something we should have done long ago. I welcome the report by the Committee of the Centre and was glad to be able to contribute to it at Committee meetings.
I welcome the junior Minister to the debate and ask him if there is a timetable for this matter. The Committee has worked very hard in a short time, and that dynamic must continue until the commissioner has been appointed.
This appointment will mark a massive step forward for society and prove that we are serious about the needs and rights of children and not just paying lip service to them. To secure the best future for children, it is critical that we establish a children’s commissioner from a children’s rights’ perspective, as opposed to a child welfare or protection perspective.
I welcome the Committee’s recommendations that the children’s commissioner should be independent and that he or she should have an input into reserved matters such as the juvenile justice system. This is a field where young people and the areas in which they live have been badly let down by successive British Ministers who have looked at the problem in a short-sighted way. They treated the matter as one for punishment, without putting thought or resources into reintegration and the problems that this causes.
Although I am very glad that we are finally about to have a children’s commissioner, some matters still need to be addressed before we proceed. It is vital that we get this right so that the children’s commissioner is approachable and accountable, not just to the Assembly but to the people whom he or she will be representing — children and young people.
Another crucial area concerns the powers that the commissioner will have. It would be a disgrace if we appointed a children’s commissioner who was, in effect, a lame duck. We must ensure that he is properly resourced to carry out his duties and make a real difference to children’s lives. Mr Hendron said earlier that the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 was a good piece of work. However, while it was a positive piece of legislation, it was not well resourced. The commissioner must be adequately resourced.
In that light, I am concerned that in paragraph 4.4.4 of the report the words "where other avenues of redress have failed" are included in the proposals under the heading "Duties and Powers". The denial of rights may demand immediate action by an independent body like the commissioner; in cases of abuse, for example. There may also be situations in which it is those involved in the investigating process who are denying children’s rights. We should not have to wait for other avenues to be exhausted before the commissioner can act. The commissioner should have the power to carry out investigations as and when he or she thinks fit in the best interests of a child, or when approached by agencies, groups or individuals to get involved.
Paragraph 4.4.9 of the report states that the commissioner should have the power to intervene in legal cases. It is essential to clarify whether this means the power to undertake third-party interventions. This power, if it is to be of benefit to the commissioner, must include both sets of circumstances.
It has not been recommended that the commissioner be empowered to assist a child where there is a breach of the child’s rights. I recognise the need for a strategic casework approach, but it is vital that the commissioner is in a position to assist — including financially — in individual cases where the rights of children have been denied.
The role of the children’s commissioner is potentially of major benefit in the area of children’s rights, if the Assembly can iron out the details. Getting it right at this stage will be one of the most important things that the Assembly has done to date, and it will be something that Members will have just cause to be proud of.
I thank the Committee staff for their hard work on the report. Addressing the report’s recommendations will enable the children’s commissioner to become a champion of children’s rights, and it will empower our children — especially the most vulnerable in society. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Ken Robinson: I thank the Committee staff for the excellent way in which they helped us in this mammoth process. Congratulations are also to be extended to the Chairperson, who conducted the very weighty business in a fair and professional manner. I pay tribute to my Colleagues from all parties, because this undertaking is central to society.
The report represents a realistic and common-sense approach to what has unfortunately been a blight upon society up to now; the manner in which we have treated our children — the most vulnerable and valuable asset in society. The report also represents a firm signpost indicating that our community may now address the oversights, insensitivities and abuses of the past and provide a future that is bright, safe and positive for our children.
The Committee received 26 oral submissions and 24 written submissions. These came from a variety of statutory and voluntary organisations, which approached the situation in a positive and professional manner and agreed that there was a need for a children’s commissioner.
Trond Waage, the Commissioner for Children in Norway, was one of the most impressive witnesses. Mr Waage not only spoke of the mechanics of the commission and how Norwegians have been edging towards their current situation since 1970; he also opened the Committee’s eyes to the fact that adults sometimes fail to appreciate children’s view points and approaches to life. My Colleague, Mr Beggs, said that Committee members listened in awe as Mr Waage explained how Norwegians involve their children. They use e-government and all the powers they have to allow children at every level; as individuals; in school councils; and in local areas, to voice their concerns and to share their hopes and aspirations for the future with adults. In Norway, adults listened.
The Committee is presenting the Assembly with a framework. We can do no more. It is for the Assembly and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to treat the framework — the signpost — with the respect that is its due. It is pointing us forward. Although some of my Colleagues have mentioned some shortcomings in the mechanics of the exercise, we all have a clear vision of the future.
The submission that impressed me most — apart from that of the Norwegian Commissioner — was from the young people in Londonderry. They said that there must be a complete change of attitude and in ways of thinking, because young people and adults almost speak different languages. That should make us pause. It is fundamental. We are trying to solve a problem from an adult perspective while young people are telling us that we cannot communicate with them at a basic linguistic level.
The Gulbenkian Foundation inquiry into effective government structures for children supported the need for a children’s commissioner. Some colleagues have referred to the United Nation’s Committee on the Rights of the Child, and the Council of Europe, which, in its European Strategy for Children, proposes the appointment of a commissioner. We are all agreed on the appointment of a commissioner.
There have been some sad references along the way. When the Chairperson of the Health and Social Services Committee of the National Assembly for Wales gave evidence she spoke about the ‘Lost in Care’ report which was based on a series of child abuse allegations in Wales. This event caused that community to stop, take stock and look at ways in which the situation might be redressed. Their recommendation was that a commissioner should be appointed. The Welsh Assembly Member impressed us with her submission.
The Northern Ireland voluntary sector document, ‘Putting Children First’ represents a campaign for a commissioner which has been running for many years. It recommends that the commissioner should not be appointed in isolation but as part as an overall strategy, so that all Departments will look to the needs and vital issues affecting our children. It is important that the statutory and voluntary agencies know their roles and the areas of interface with other organisations to ensure that no child is allowed to slip through the net. The child should always be at the centre of our concerns.
Our commissioner is going to be all things to all people. However, he or she must be a champion for children, a watchdog for children, and if necessary a whistle-blower for children. We cannot allow the abuses and inactivity of the past to continue.
I am glad to say that the commissioner will report to the Assembly annually. That requirement does not impinge upon the independence of his post. It is a positive sign that he or she will be required to appear, at least once, before the Committee of the Centre. The commissioner will be there to be questioned; to report, and to let us review any of the issues raised in the Chamber so that they may be put right. I have no hesitation in commending the Committee’s report to the House.

Mrs Annie Courtney: As a member of the Committee of the Centre I support the motion. I commend the organisations that gave freely of their time in providing evidence to the Committee.
The Chairperson detailed the processes involved in the Committee coming to its conclusions, and I do not intend to dwell on those. Our proposals have come about following wide consultation with all bodies dealing with children and young people. We received presentations from the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the Norwegian Children’s Ombudsman, and the National Assembly for Wales, which has appointed a children’s commissioner recently. All parties involved made clear presentations and answered questions from Committee members who sought clarification on certain issues.
The results of those meetings form part of the recommendations presented to the House today. I draw particular attention to recommendation 7, which discusses the childproofing of legislation; and recommendation 32, which says that young people should be involved in the appointment of a commissioner, and that the Committee commends the process used by the Welsh Assembly.
The Committee sought the views of young people, and for that reason we held a separate meeting at Magee College in Derry where we heard directly from young people about their concerns. They were forthright in their views, and we learned a lot from them. They felt that a commissioner could make a difference, because they were at a loss at times to understand who was responsible for looking after them.
We heard the views of the Derry Children’s Commission, which has been working with children and young people for the past couple of years and has gained valuable expertise in the subject. I fully support the appointment of a commissioner, and I support the Chairperson, Mr Poots, in his call for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to take full account of the report’s 35 recommendations.
The report is the result of many weeks of intensive consultation and is one of the most important documents to be tabled in the House.
The initial proposal to appoint a children’s commissioner has the support of all the parties represented here. These recommendations put the flesh on the bones of that proposal and will enable it to be implemented. That is why I am pleased to commend the report to the House. I also commend everyone involved, the Chairperson, my Committee Colleagues and the staff who worked tirelessly to get the report published in time.

Mr Jim Shannon: I rise to support the proposal and to thank the Chairperson for his leadership and the Committee members for their contributions.
There can be no doubt that there is a real need for a children’s commissioner to be appointed here with a remit to look after the affairs of young people and children. For too long legislation has not been equal to the goals of preventing child abuse while maintaining parental authority. Parental authority is crucial to the maintenance of social integrity, but it is equally important that we, as public representatives, do our best to ensure that children remain free from bad parenting, abuse, maltreatment and exploitation.
Anyone who has read the report will know that all those who made a representation supported, in principle, the appointment of a children’s commissioner. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified by our Government, and the Council of Europe has called for the establishment of independent offices for children. That makes the call for such an appointment here irresistible. In other countries where a commissioner for children has been appointed there was as much evidence to support the appointment as there is in Northern Ireland.
The need for children to have their voices heard and acknowledged is crucial to the development of society. The report recommends working through schools, youth clubs, youth councils and involving IT to enable children to deliver their opinions and attitudes properly.
It is also essential that the appointment of any new commissioner, especially one to deal with children’s issues, be an integral part of a wider political strategy. The appointment must encompass all aspects of life affecting children, whether in family centres, fostering or adoption services, domiciliary care, private and voluntary hospitals, day care or child-minding services.
There is a legitimate argument that we could go too far with children’s rights. In these days of politically correct madness, there is every possibility that this could happen. To balance that, we must therefore ensure that no measure taken to put children first on our list of priorities undermines the authority of their parents. The minority who abuse their own and other people’s children must not be allowed to weaken the fabric of society. The results can be positive if we strike the right balance.
The role and responsibility of a new commissioner must be founded on a commitment to represent every single child on any issue brought to his office — irrespective of race, religion, culture, social background or whether the child is in or out of the care system. The commissioner should act so as to give the impression to every child that he or she will receive treatment equal to that of any other. It is essential to the success of the commissioner that this office be backed by the proper authority and legislation to enable him or her to pursue all cases under investigation where in the past there has been stalemate. The commissioner must have the power to carry out effective investigations and to provide and disclose all relevant documentation, and we must ensure that child services are distributed across the country in proportion with population.
The commissioner should be able to pinpoint areas of improvement and the direction of any subsequent strategy, and he should be capable of allocating resources to best effect. He or she should be able to act as a watchdog for children, and to assess and analyse the implications of legislation brought before the Assembly and the House of Commons which will have an impact on the lives of children. This post should carry the power to submit papers and reports to relevant bodies indicating where there is improvement and where policy and strategy need to be enhanced.
One issue that is essential to the success of the role is the commissioner’s ability to be directly involved in reserved matters. The remit should extend to matters involving the juvenile justice system with the right to scrutinise all reserved legislation at primary level and sufficient resources to complete this task successfully. It would be a terrible disappointment if the resources were not there to carry out the job correctly.
Another issue that must be emphasised is the independent nature of the commissioner. We all agree with the majority of those who submitted evidence to the Assembly. They said that it is essential for the long-term success of the commissioner for children that the office be completely independent of Departments and public bodies. The aims, goals and projects held and implemented by the commissioner must come from a base of complete and unadulterated objectivity and impartiality. A commissioner who operates to someone else’s agenda will inevitably fail to increase the profile of children.
Gone are the days when the phrase "children should be seen and not heard" was given any credibility. Instead, the rights of children have been at the forefront of political discussion and debate. It is up to the Government to ensure that an environment is created in which children’s rights are upheld, their safety secured and their needs met. Northern Ireland is desperately lagging behind the rest of Europe when it comes to the rights of children and young people. The children of Northern Ireland deserve better.
Unfortunately, today’s society has too often overlooked the needs of children. This has led to children being exposed to dangers and volatile situations. Children should be allowed to act as children and should not be placed in situations that force them to grow up too quickly. It is up to the Government to ensure that children are protected from the darker elements of society.
The presence and prevalence of paedophiles in our society has never been greater. A paedophile register should include the names of people who have been convicted of paedophile activity in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland. This would allow the authorities, both in Northern Ireland and south of the border, to monitor the movement of sex offenders. Although society will never be able to guarantee total protection of the most vulnerable children and young people from those intent on committing sexual or physical abuse, this new legislation will provide the children of Northern Ireland with a commissioner — a new symbol of hope for their future. It will send out a clear signal to those who abuse children that their behaviour will no longer be tolerated.

Mrs Joan Carson: I welcome the comprehensive report, and I congratulate the Committee for its consultation with many groups and bodies. I have concerns about some of the Committee’s recommendations. They could be seen from a parent’s, a grandparent’s and a family point of view as authoritarian and interventionist if they were all fully implemented. It would be impossible to comprehend their impact on families, parents, teachers, social workers and even other children.
I note that there are no oral or written submissions from any church representatives. There was only one submission — from a parent’s advice centre — to represent the voice of parents. Were these groups asked to attend, participate or give a written submission? I agree with the Christian Action Research and Education (CARE) group that the primary object of a children’s commissioner must be to protect children. It also stated:
"It would be tragic if the Commissioner’s ability to protect children from abuse was compromised by demands that he should spend his time empowering children generally."
We have to think about those two objectives.
The criteria for the appointment of a children’s commissioner will need extremely careful consideration to make sure that we have the right person in the post. The Committee’s recommendation says:
"The candidates for the post of commissioner for children should be based on skills, competence and experience, with an emphasis on the ability to engage directly with children, rather than necessarily having a specific professional or academic qualification."
I am concerned about the difficulty in specifying the personal requirements, because the recommendation is rather vague. It makes no recommendation about what skills, competencies or experience the Committee has in mind. These should be clearly spelt out.
Interestingly, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission says that the person who fills the post should bring status and respect, and should be popular with children. The Western Young People’s Steering Group said that he or she must be easily accessible, physically and mentally, so that young people’s minds are relaxed. That is a bit confusing.
Those recommendations, plus the intellectual ability required for the children’s commissioner to initiate legislation, will make for an interesting appointee. I hope that the report’s recommendations will not confuse or cloud the appointment of a children’s commissioner. The report has given us food for thought on how the Assembly should proceed, but I urge that care and consideration be given to all possibilities. We must consider the impact of these wide-ranging recommendations on the general family unit in Northern Ireland. I want us to create an office that will fulfil our primary objective: a commissioner to protect children in all situations. I support the motion.

Mr Denis Haughey: On behalf of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, I welcome the report and the debate. I have listened carefully to Members’ contributions. They have been informative and interesting, and will be fully taken account of by my office as the proposals for a commissioner for children are developed. I will respond to as many of the specific points made by Members as I can, but if I do not have enough time I will send a written response to Members whose individual points have not been covered.
The appointment of a children’s commissioner is one of the most significant and exciting things to occur since devolution. It is an important milestone on the road away from a society mired in conflict to a shared society where rights are the basis on which citizens are treated — and that includes children and young people.
Far from being on the sidelines of conflict, children have been deeply involved in and affected by the conflict here. Of the many people who were killed during the troubles, over 400 were children. They were denied the most basic right of all — the right to life. Countless thousands were denied the right to a normal, happy and peaceful childhood.
Having been part of, and deeply affected by, the conflict, children deserve to be part of the solution and the construction of a new society here. The Good Friday Agreement has enshrined the principles of inclusion, equality, human rights and citizenship in the system of government. The challenge now is to ensure that those principles are applied to children and young people. It is our intention that the office of the commissioner for children will translate those principles into protection for children on the ground.
Our aim is simple. It is to put Northern Ireland at the cutting edge of best practice in the protection of children’s rights. Like the Committee of the Centre, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has been involved in dialogue with key stakeholders to ensure that its policy proposals draw on the skill and experience of those in both the statutory and non-government sectors who work with children, or represent their views.
In particular, we have striven to ensure that the views of children and young people are included at this formative stage in the process. However, I should point out that we will need professional, skilled help in doing that. It is not desirable that unskilled people like ourselves should confront children and demand to know what their views are. That is unlikely to lead to the best results. We must therefore work very hard to create a conducive environment in which children can feel comfortable and free to speak their minds.
Members made specific points, and I will try to cover as many of those as possible. I welcome the emphasis laid by the Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre, Mr Poots, on the involvement of children and young people in the process. Mr Gibson, Mrs Bell and several other Members also referred to it. It is true that adults too often take the view that the whole purpose of childhood is to prepare children for adulthood so that they become good citizens. The perspective brought to bear on this situation has derived from the involvement of children in other jurisdictions and has led us to a greater awareness of the fact that children are entitled to a happy, healthy, secure and safe childhood without regard to any other consideration. Our emphasis should be on children’s happiness, safety and security now, rather than on what we need to do to make sure that they turn out to be good citizens.
I also welcome the Committee Chairman’s emphasis on the importance of the family framework. Mrs Carson and others also raised the importance of the position of parents and the need not to neglect that position. I do not agree entirely with Mrs Carson’s caution in respect of the right of the proposed commissioner to investigate abuses and complaints. I recognise that such a power would have to be used very sensitively to avoid undue invasion of the rights of parents and an invasive or authoritarian impact on family life. Unfortunately, however, a great deal of abuse, neglect and harm to children occurs within the family framework. It is therefore essential that the commissioner has adequate powers — where there is sufficient justification, and with defined and proper safeguards — to look at the situation of children in families where they may be at risk.
The third important point in Mr Poots’s contribution was his emphasis on the independence of the commissioner. That is important from various points of view. Several Members asked to whom the commissioner would be accountable. The report produced by the Committee of the Centre suggests that the commissioner should be accountable to the Assembly but through the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I wonder whether that is the right way to go about it. Obviously, we will take full account of the arguments made by the Committee of the Centre, but to make the commissioner accountable to a Government Department rather than directly to the Assembly bears upon the quality of his or her independence. We must look very carefully at that. I am not saying that the arguments made by the Committee of the Centre will be dismissed, but there may be other perspectives. We will want to talk to the Committee of the Centre as we develop our proposals in this regard.
I liked and approved of the emphasis that the Committee Chairperson and others put on the necessity for the children’s commissioner to have responsibilities and obligations to all children — not just those at risk, in care or in certain special circumstances. That was raised again by Mr Gibson, Mrs Bell and others. It is important, and we fully intend it to be the case.
A fifth issue that arose and was referred to by a number of Members, including the Committee Chairperson, was the power that the commissioner might have to take cases. The Committee’s report appears to suggest that this power might be limited to strategic interventions — sometimes referred to as class actions. I am not sure that we would want to restrict or confine the commissioner’s power to intervene in cases purely within those limits. In the longer term, after we have consulted, we may wish the commissioner to have more extensive powers of intervention.
There are three ways in which he or she might intervene: by supporting an action that is being taken by a child or on its behalf by its parents; by taking the case him- or herself; or by taking the role of an amicus curiae — a friend of the court who can be called to give expert evidence. We must look carefully at defining the commissioner’s role in a way that ensures that he or she has sufficient power to take legal cases and make legal interventions where possible. However, we must also ensure that his role does not become a power that could be oppressive or abusive.
The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Gibson, referred to dovetailing, which means that policies relating to children should have an integrated impact on their situation. That mirrors the thinking of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and relates to the cliché of joined-up government, making sure that policies and practices mesh together without conflict or turmoil. I am aware of that and assure the Member that it is part of our thinking.
Mr Gibson referred to childproofing legislation as a desirable function for the children’s commissioner. Mrs Bell, Ms Morrice, Mr Beggs, Mrs Courtney and others also referred to it. I assure them that we are thinking carefully about how a commissioner might play such a role.
Mrs Lewsley made an interesting and important extension to that point. She said that the commissioner should not only have a role in childproofing legislation, but that he should also examine the practices of Departments and agencies to make sure that they are conducive to the welfare and good of children. Once again, we will look at that.
Mr Gibson referred to the need for children to have a voice and be able to communicate with the commissioner. However, should we not also think about giving children a voice that goes beyond the ability to communicate with the commissioner, a voice that would enable them to communicate generally and to communicate ideas? The new children’s parliament in the South — the Dáil na nÓg — will meet for the first time shortly. We should look carefully at that to see what improvement it brings to children’s situations and what improved awareness of children’s views and attitudes it generates.
Mr Gibson mentioned accountability to the Assembly through the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. As I said earlier, that has merits, but we must be mindful of the independence of the commissioner, and we must look carefully at the right way to do this.
Mr Gibson also raised the issue of adequate resources, which was also mentioned by Mr Conor Murphy and Ms Gildernew. Resources are an important consideration. There is no point in establishing the post of children’s commissioner if he or she does not have the resources to do the job. Mr Gibson’s final point was that the proposal makes sense only as part of a wider strategy. Members should be aware that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is examining the role of a children’s commissioner as part of a wider strategy.
Dr Hendron said that speedy progress was needed, and Ms Morrice, Ms Gildernew and others spoke about the timetable for carrying the process forward. We intend to have the consultation document on the proposal for a children’s commissioner ready by August, and we are more or less on target. The consultation period could then run from August to October, allowing us to receive and consider responses.
Assuming that the process runs smoothly, we will devote November and December to preparing the legislation. We hope to introduce the legislation to the Assembly early in the new year. We hope to have developed a broad and cohesive approach to the matter by that stage. I suspect that there is a high level of consensus on the issue. The legislation would be on the statute book by spring next year. It is not possible to be any more accurate than that about the timetable. We hope to begin consultation on the broader strategy early in the new year, and we shall consider the whole range of changes that might affect children. We will do that while moving ahead with the proposal for a children’s commissioner.
My Colleague, Dr Hendron, highlighted the potential role of the commissioner in assessing existing legislation. He made the interesting and important point that it would make a considerable difference to the situation of children if existing legislation such as the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 was properly and rigorously enforced. We must bear that in mind.
Dr Hendron also spoke about the treatment of children in adult psychiatric units and the placement of children in overcrowded facilities. The children’s commissioner will want to consider such matters carefully and make recommendations to the Administration, but I do not think that one should pre-empt what he or she might say. Dr Hendron also referred to the commissioner’s powers of investigation, including discovery of documents, entry to premises and the power to subpoena witnesses. We are examining those powers carefully, because it is important that the office of the commissioner should have the teeth necessary to investigate complaints and reports of abuse. The commissioner should not simply make statements deploring abuse; he or she should have the powers to discover documents, subpoena witnesses, and so on, as these are necessary for the investigation of abuse.
Mr Conor Murphy said that the commissioner should have the role of a watchdog for the rights of children. That is in line with the thinking of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Mr Murphy and other Members raised the issue of the investigation of cases and the associated powers of entry, discovery and seizure. I have referred to that.
He did make one point that other Members, including Ms Morrice, referred to, and that was about the commissioner’s role in research. Unfortunately, we do not have the necessary research findings, statistics and information upon which to base a children’s policy. There may be a considerable role for the commissioner in research, and we must consider quite what that will be.
Ms Morrice said that there is no need for the commissioner to duplicate what other agencies do, or could do. It is my view that it does not matter who does it, as long as we have the information and statistics that we need.
Mr Conor Murphy also referred to the need for adequate resources and powers, and other Members made the same point. He suggested that we should set a standard for cutting-edge good practice in Northern Ireland, and that is our full intention.
Mr Beggs made reference to organisations on the ground. I take his point, and we have already considered it necessary to involve such organisations. That is why we decided to set up the NGO forum. It has met three or four times and has made a very valuable input into the development of children’s policies.
Mr Beggs also referred to pre-school education. That is not something we can deal with – it is a matter for the Minister of Education. We need to consider what role the commissioner will play in such matters and make recommendations to Ministers and the Administration accordingly.
Mr Beggs also referred to the need for the commissioner to have a role in planning children’s facilities such as playgrounds and playing facilities. That would obviously involve the Departments for Regional and Social Development as well as district councils, the Housing Executive, central Government, local government and various Government agencies, and that reminds us of the need for an integrated approach on the part of those organisations.
Mr Beggs made the interesting point that it would not be necessary for the Commissioner to do everything himself. Rather he should ensure that tasks are carried out by the relevant agencies and have the right to undertake to get them done if no agency is ready and willing to do them.
He also made a point about the involvement of children in the process. Given the practice that has been developed in countries such as Norway and Wales of involving children in the decision-making process, it is important that we do not do less than they are doing in this.
Ms Lewsley made the important point that devolution is making a difference. I can say without fear of contradiction that there is a good deal of enthusiasm for devolution among NGOs and the organisations that deal with children. Having our own Ministers has brought a considerable impetus to matters such as this, and these organisations are greatly enthused by the progress that we have made on children’s policies during devolution.
Mr Ken Robinson also made an interesting point about children from Derry. He said that adults and children speak very different languages and that we need to have professional help to understand the language used by children so as to bring their perspective to bear upon our proposals.
I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate. We will consider very carefully all that has been said to us. I look forward to receiving the response of the Committee of the Centre to the proposals when they are published in the consultation document.

Mr Edwin Poots: I thank the Members who took part in the debate for their positive and constructive contributions. The number of Members who expressed a general welcome echoes the consensus in the Committee on the appointment of a children’s commissioner for Northern Ireland and the recommendations on his role and remit. I want to pick up on a few of the points made.
Dr Hendron made reference to the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 being fully implemented. Recommendations 5, 8 and 9 all deal with that. Recommendation 5 says that the commissioner for children should act as an advocate for children’s rights and monitor the delivery of these rights in Northern Ireland. Recommendation 8 says that the commissioner for children should have a role in assessing existing legislation and bringing forward proposals and recommendations for change, where appropriate. Recommendation 9 says that the commissioner for children should have a role in considering and commenting on the impact of policies and practices on children and young people. Those recommendations deal with what Dr Hendron talked about.
On the cost of implementation — and he made particular reference to legal cases — we can only go by the costs in other countries. In Wales, for example, £800,000 has been set aside. We have based our estimates on what has taken place in other countries, and the cost for Northern Ireland should be somewhere in that region.
Ms Morrice made reference to post-care services. We have recommended that children coming out of care should have help for a further three years, beyond the age of 18, after they come out of care — if help is required. In many cases it is fairly obvious that help is required. I quoted the statistics earlier.
With reference to research, recommendation 20 provides that the commissioner for children should have a responsibility to highlight to the relevant agencies areas where additional research and statistics are required and a duty to undertake or commission research, if deemed necessary, on issues of concern to children.
Mrs Carson made a number of points in relation to family life. She had some concerns about the appointment process. We believe that it is important that the commissioner can relate to children first. Academic qualifications come after that. There is little point in having someone who has academic qualifications the length of your arm, but who cannot relate to children and young people. We need someone who can actually relate and who is well qualified. The ability to relate comes first and foremost; the qualifications are secondary.
I would be wholly opposed to a children’s commissioner interfering in any way in individual family life. I do not believe that a commissioner will have the time to interfere in individual family life. Ninety per cent of his time will be taken up by 5% to 10% of children and young people. The work of the commissioner is going to lie where the problems are. If the commissioner does not address those issues, and instead addresses issues in which he should not be interfering, his accountability would have to be called into question and addressed. I understand Mrs Carson’s concerns, but I do not believe it will turn out to be a problem.
Mr Haughey made reference to the legal implications and said that he thought we should give the commissioner more powers. The Committee felt that the commissioner should not get bogged down in legal cases, given the problems that can prevail there. The Committee’s view is that the commissioner should step in where required, when others had failed. We have had cases in Northern Ireland, and indeed in the rest of the United Kingdom, where others have failed and there was no commissioner to step in.
However, the commissioner should not be involved when others are currently doing that task. I appreciate the Minister’s positive response. Our focus was on speeding up the appointment process, and the report was intended to add emphasis to that process. The appointment is not a panacea, but it is hoped that it will address the worst aspects of child abuse in Northern Ireland — whether sexual, physical or mental — and improve children’s lives.
I express my sincere gratitude to the staff who worked hard in drawing up the report and to those members of the Committee who came to almost every meeting and who had the greatest input. I want to make special reference to them. I commend the report.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly approves the Report of the Committee of the Centre on its inquiry into the proposal for a commissioner for children for Northern Ireland (2/00R) and calls on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to take full account of the recommendations.

Seed Potatoes (Crop Fees) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I beg to move
That the Seed Potatoes (Crop Fees) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 (SR 228/2001) be annulled.
When a rule subject to negative resolution has been formally laid before the Assembly, a Statutory Committee can only approve it or seek its annullment by the Assembly. At a meeting on 11 May 2001 the Committee discussed the proposed Regulations and agreed that it could not support them, given the difficulties faced by the potato sector and farming in general. I wrote to the Minister on 16 May on behalf of the Committee with that message.
The Minister’s reply of 22 May said that full cost recovery is the basic financial objective for all charging. In an earlier letter dated 13 May, giving notice of the proposed Regulation, the Minister’s private secretary referred to an Ulster Farmers’ Union request for the fees to be waived in 2001. He said that it was not possible to agree to that request. In other words, the clear message from the Minister and the Department was that the increase would go ahead, regardless of the Committee or anyone else.
As a Committee we do not want to have to pray against that rule. I happen to believe in prayer, but I do not want to pray on that one. However, in this case the Committee’s views were blatantly ignored by the Department. The Seed Potatoes (Crop Fees) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 left the Committee no option but to put the matter before the Assembly.
I bring the motion before the House today with the full support of the Committee, at a time when the farming industry, the backbone of the Northern Ireland economy, is on its knees. Farmers have had catastrophe after disaster piled on them in recent times through no fault of their own. However, there is no need for me to revisit the curtailment of activities and financial hardships brought on farmers and their families by BSE and foot-and- mouth disease.
These matters have been aired on many occasions in the House and have been acknowledged as a crisis by everybody.
The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, in this very place, has accepted that farmers are in trouble. She has set up various initiatives to help them, which we welcome. On the other hand, her Department puts yet another financial burden on people who are already at their wits’ end. These Regulations are a prime example. It does not make sense to Committee members to give with one hand and take away with the other. For example, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has seen fit to spend money setting up a rural support line for farmers who are feeling worried or stressed, so that they can speak to a trained counsellor. This clearly recognises that current policies are creating such serious problems that they must be urgently and professionally addressed. To introduce these Regulations would add to farmers’ financial worries and create even more stress; that is incomprehensible at this time.
The Minister pointed out to the Committee that the fees increase for farmers this year would be minimal. In that case, the Department could easily absorb the extra costs and relieve a much-beleaguered community from this extra pressure. The Minister may like to tell the House what additional money would be involved for the year. She had a golden opportunity to send a message of support to farmers by agreeing to set aside any increase in fees this year. The appreciation of farmers would surely have far exceeded the additional fees collected. That opportunity has now been lost.
Members may know that the Department has commissioned a policy review of the potato sector. That review is not due to be completed until late summer or early autumn this year. Other considerations aside, surely in the light of this review and the Minister’s acceptance that the seed-potato sector has been in decline for several years, it is not right to impose increases in fees this year, particularly in the face of objections from producers and their representatives. We can all reconsider the issue next year, informed by the findings of the review. The Committee wants to send a positive message to farmers — "We continue to recognise your plight". I call on Assembly Members to support this prayer of annulment.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I do not wish to limit this debate, but I am conscious that the Business Committee has allocated only another 15 minutes for it.

Mr George Savage: In rising to support my Chairman’s motion, I believe that there is one guiding principle that must govern all Assembly decisions — no additional financial or regulatory burdens should be placed on farmers in Northern Ireland at this time. Farmers need breathing space to enable them to recover lost ground and loss of income. Following the problems of the devastating decade that they have endured — of which foot-and-mouth disease is only the latest manifestation — farmers need our help and support. They do not need additional Regulations and charges.
With so much concentration on livestock, the seed-potato growers are sometimes a forgotten part of the agriculture sector, but they are a very important part. In the middle of the day, everyone likes a potato. One of the principal reasons why we must actively help and support the seed-potato growers is the threat posed to them by the enlargement of the European Union. With new member states joining the European Union, the threat of price undercutting is very real, especially after the Nice Treaty.
We hear that land has cost a mere £200 an acre for over 50 years in Poland and that agricultural labourers are paid £20 a month — that is only one example. The implications of that are serious and far-reaching, because it will be decades before their salaries and land prices reach the western European minimum, let alone the western European average.
The threat to our seed-potato growers from that source is now real. We can help them by supporting the motion from the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, and I urge Members to do that.
The cost to farmers has been rising for various reasons. I urge the Department to cut its costs and be more efficient — as farmers must. I do not want to repeat everything that the Chairperson has said, but I ask Members for their support. Give our farmers a breathing space, and let them regroup and reorganise for the years ahead.

Mr P J Bradley: As politicians we are all inclined to form part of the "what I want" brigade — meaning that we want as much as possible for those whom we represent; and they are no different. They too are keen to benefit from the deliberations of their politicians. The common desire often depends on the money available. Members of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development are no different from those in other Committees. We too have a lot of soul-searching to do before making decisions, particularly if there are financial implications.
In the springtime I met, as requested, with seed producers in my South Down constituency. They recognise that recovering lost markets and finding new ones is essential if the seed business is to regain its viability. The Minister and her Department cannot embark on a market-seeking exercise if they do not have adequate funding, and that makes it easy for me to understand why the Department is seeking to increase its income — albeit very minimally in this instance — as it sets about establishing the necessary marketing structures.
This may not be the best time to make the necessary increases. The seed industry has reached an all-time low as far as prices and profit are concerned. The farmers do not have the cash to meet new demands, even if those demands are in their best interests. For example, in the past it was often the case that when the beef trade was good, the potato industry was bad or vice versa. The same could be said of the dairy industry, the pig industry, the grain trade, et cetera. Farmers could depend on at least one sector of their industry to offset the difficulties that arose out of a downward trend in the viability of another.
However, the entire industry has collapsed for a multitude of reasons in the last three years. At present there are no viable sectors on Northern Ireland farms. For that reason, it may be prudent to postpone the proposed increase for at least a year. In making this suggestion, I am tying the hands of the Minister in her efforts to find new markets for our seed producers. Nevertheless, a one-year waiver on the increase will serve the best short-term interests of the producers. I assure the Minister that if she applies a further one-year waiver, I shall — for 12 months at least — limit my questions on the marketing of seed potatoes.

Mr Gardiner Kane: We should be discussing assistance to the agriculture industry this afternoon, but instead we are defending one sector against inappropriate and unacceptable additional costs.
It is disturbing that despite the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development concluding that the Seed Potato Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 are inappropriate, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is persistent about implementing them, contrary to what has been said by some who wish those Regulations to become a party political matter. This is about a fair deal for seed-potato growers in the Province, and to turn it into anything else only demonstrates an ignorance of farmers’ problems.
The implementation of Regulations that add to production costs, at a time when farmers are desperately seeking a chink of light at the end of a very long tunnel, flies in the face of common sense. This is especially so since the seed potato and the entire potato sector are not subsidised. Since the potato sector has not escaped the effects of low product values in recent years, the negative effect of increased fees on the producer is clear.
We should be doing everything possible to encourage, not discourage, all sectors of the agriculture industry. The reasoning behind the implementation of these Regulations is unclear. It is no minor matter that the fees increase would be of minimal significance to the Department’s budget. My party Colleagues and I believe that the damage of implementing these seed-potato Regulations far outweighs their gain. I support the annulment of these Regulations and ask that the Department and the Minister give appropriate consideration to the views of the Committee and of those affected by these damaging Regulations.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. I do not think that there is any need for further discussion of this issue. Our problem with the Regulations is that the Department simply forces them on farmers without taking into account the points that have been raised and, in particular, the year that is in it.
Almost all farmers, regardless of what area of production they are in, have suffered as a result of foot-and-mouth disease and the crisis in the industry over the past five years. Nevertheless, whatever the cost may be, the Department will simply impose a Regulation so that its budget will not be affected. I agree that someone must pay for the costs of assessment and so on, but this is not the best year to do it. The Agriculture Committee agreed that particular sensitivity was needed this year when farmers are obliged to pay up. That is why I support the motion.
One of the problems with these Regulations, and with others that filter down from Europe through the Department, is that their effect on producers here is not always adequately scrutinised. A recent example places liability on the original producer for the legal implications of food traceability and for the cost of medical difficulties when people are struck down by diseases such as BSE.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have noted the comments and concerns expressed on this matter, but I must oppose this motion and ask the support of the Assembly in rejecting it. My Department, like all Departments, is required to recover the cost of the statutory services that it provides from the beneficiaries of those services.
The requirement that fees should cover the full cost of service delivery where a benefit accrues to an individual business has been a justified feature of Treasury, and in our case Department of Finance and Personnel, policy for some time. I have considered all the factors, and I am as aware of the difficulties faced by the farming community as anyone else. However, I was unable to accept that there was justification for not increasing the fee at this time on that basis.
In particular, I was conscious that a decision not to increase the fees and charges levied by my Department, of which this is but one, would mean my having to fund the additional costs from my Department’s resources at a time when the industry made many competing and justified calls to me for help.
The main point that I want to make is that the increase in the fee is insignificant, amounting to no more than £5 over the year on average for each producer involved. The costs in Northern Ireland still compare very favourably with those levied in other parts of the UK. For example, even with the increase provided for in the Regulations, the crop fees here cost 34p per hectare. The comparative figure in Scotland is 58p and in England 81p.
The agreement with the Department of Finance and Personnel requires full cost recovery, which in this instance would have meant a 6·5% increase, but I decided to limit it to the inflationary indicator of 3%. No increases were applied from 1995-99 following a comprehensive review of our staffing and other costs, which enabled the fees to be maintained at a stable level for those years. However, it has been necessary to increase them since, as costs have increased; annulling this Regulation would widen the gap between cost and fees, which would have to be faced later. Conversely, annulment of these Regulations would have very significant precedent-setting implications for all increases of fees and charges proposed for other areas in my Department and for other Departments as well.
The need to increase these fees is not, as has been suggested, due to a lack of appreciation on my part of the sector’s difficulties. My Department is very proactive in trying to arrest and reverse the decline in the seed-potato sector here. It is not a forgotten sector, as suggested by Mr Savage — certainly not by my Department.
Since 1999 key players have been involved in examining opportunities for a support and development strategy for this sector. Several action points are being progressed on the quality and image of Northern Ireland seed, supplemented by close liaison, best practice and exploring what can be done to improve the sector’s competitiveness for the home and export markets.
I have also recently commissioned a policy review of our potato sector, the emphasis of which will be on the seed-potato sub-sector. This review will involve consultations with all parties concerned and will inform strategic decisions for the future. All factors influencing the situation will be considered, particularly the significance of international factors, including over-supply in most markets, the strength of sterling and increased competition in North African markets.
The review will also address alleged quality problems with Northern Ireland seed potatoes in respect of physical factors relating to storage, packaging and transportation as well as the effectiveness of promotional and marketing effort. This is the correct way to support the industry, and my decision to increase these fees should be supported despite the obvious populist appeal of not doing so.
There is also a rebate for some tuber inspection fees, whereby 75% of fees representing potatoes exported from Northern Ireland are rebated to producers. The average cost of the increases to the individual farmer drops proportionately when account is taken of the rebate. I am sure that Members will appreciate the significant impact of that.
In conclusion, I hope that my explanation has demonstrated that it was not possible for me to follow the easy course of keeping fees at their current level. For the reasons that I have explained, it would not have been right. I accordingly ask for Members’ support in rejecting the motion. If Members vote in favour of the motion, I shall reluctantly accept their decision. However, they will need to note the implications of such a decision on approving, or not, other increases in fees and charges which will come before them.
I have not ignored the Committee; I have listened to the Committee and made my decision on the basis of the need — this is a matter of public accountability that I could not ignore. The additional costs incurred from not securing these and other future increases will have further implications which the Assembly must address.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I bitterly regret that the Minister has not accepted the appeals made to her. I do not understand that, because for the past five years the Department was able to make no increase in these fees. As farmers are now in a worse position than ever, why could the Department not still do that? The Minister knows that farm incomes have been slashed by almost 75%.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development could well take in the amount of money that the Minister has argued is not a big sum. If it is not a big sum, why does the Department not bear the burden? Why does it give the industry another straw that will break the camel’s back?
I appeal to the House to support the Agriculture Committee in the prayer of annulment.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Seed Potato (Crop Fees) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 (SR 228/2001) be annulled.

Seed Potato Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001

Mr David Ford: I beg to move
That the Seed Potato Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 (SR 188/2001) be annulled.
On the face of it most of the Regulations are merely updating the Seeds Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 and improving the methods by which seed potatoes can be marketed in Northern Ireland — something that nobody can object to. However, I am particularly concerned with two of the measures contained in the Regulations.
Regulation 22 will prevent the planting of seed potatoes in Northern Ireland other than fully certified seed potatoes or "once saved seed" from 31 December 2001.
I understand the issues that the Minister referred to in the previous debate. I understand the need to protect Northern Ireland’s commercial markets, particularly with regard to seed crops and the need to ensure that the highest standards are applied to ensure that Northern Ireland producers can exploit overseas markets. However, that is not the issue that really matters here. High standards may be essential in some cases, but will the Minister tell the House if Regulation 22 is intended to stop individuals growing potatoes for their own consumption several years in succession? There is no justification for that.
There might be concerns if we were talking about something that grows by seed production — possible seed hybridisation between one individual’s plants and properly certified seeds in an adjacent field. However, we are talking about potatoes grown by vegetative reproduction. There is no question of hybridisation or detriment to other growers. It is simply a question of whether individuals growing a small quantity of potatoes for themselves should be required to buy seed and pay a fee which up to now they have not been required to do if they have saved seed on their farm for many generations. Is it proposed that people who continue to do that after 1 January 2002 be made criminals? It appears to me that the Regulations are saying that this will be the case.
For me, the bigger issue is contained in Regulation 11, "Genetically Modified Seed Potatoes". I object — and the Assembly should object — to any measure appearing to put genetically modified material into the Northern Ireland environment without a full and proper debate in the Chamber. That was done when similar measures were proposed in Wales — and the National Assembly for Wales has fewer powers than we do when it comes to agriculture matters.
Undoubtedly, the Minister will tell the Assembly that Regulation 11 is merely concerned with the marketing and proper labelling of genetically modified material; it is not permitting it. If that is so, why does the Regulation appear? It is putting the cart before the horse.
There may be an EU Directive involved. However, I am speaking as one who is probably more pro-European than other members of the Agriculture Committee. There is an issue that we must take serious note of, and we have already experienced it in relation to animal diseases. A free market in living organisms should not be something that Northern Ireland rolls over and implements just because a Directive comes from Brussels. We must think about what the Directive means and what the appropriate creative thinking may mean.
To pass these Regulations with their reference to genetically modified potatoes would be to send out the wrong message at this time of crisis in agriculture.
In the previous debate Members highlighted the difficulties in the agriculture industry. I do not propose to rehearse all the arguments made by Dr Paisley and by other members of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. They have been aired often in the Chamber.
The one great advantage we have in Northern Ireland is our clean, green image; this applies to the whole of the island, not just Northern Ireland. It is a major marketing bonus, and it is something that we must develop to its utmost. If discerning consumers in Europe are looking for such a market, then we should be seeking to maximise our benefits. Anything that would suggest that we are acting detrimentally to the clean, green image in Ireland will create difficulties for us in the long term. Any question of introducing genetically modified organisms would damage that image irrevocably. That is my opinion; Members need not agree with it.
Any decision on whether to permit genetically modified crops in Northern Ireland should be taken after a full and proper debate in the Assembly and not after a Regulation is slipped through in a 15-minute debate at the end of the day. This is effectively what is being proposed by these Regulations. If the Assembly chooses to disagree with me and permits the growing of genetically modified crops, then so be it. It may be a majority decision, but I shall know that I am right and that you are wrong.
At least let us ensure that we have a properly structured debate and that we do not slide things in through the back door. Although the majority of the Regulations are perfectly acceptable, the Assembly, in this case, should reject the Regulations as they stand and ask the Minister to bring them back to us omitting these two unacceptable items.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat. I support Mr Ford’s position on Regulations 11 and 22. Genetically modified food has been a particular bone of contention for me for several years. Consumers and politicians have been musing over the issue, asking who is to blame; if there is anything really risky about it; and whether they should allow it to go ahead.
The driving force behind genetically modified food is often big business and people with no interest in the image of locally produced food. They have a global perspective. They believe that the lowest possible price is the most important factor, and that is what drives them down the road of genetically modified food. It has nothing to do with trying to make food cheaper in poorer countries or getting round the problems of famines — one of their main arguments.
The opposite has been proven to be the case when more damage is done to the environment, to the long-term future of the industry and to small businesses. Many small businesses will get into serious difficulties if we move away from a level playing field. In the United States large companies rule, and they move everyone else out. That is what genetically modified foods have to offer us.
In the case of potatoes, the issue also puts local farmers’ options at risk. They will have to import genetically modified potatoes, and they will not be able to produce food locally that has a clean, green image.
This issue should be addressed through consultation and debate with the consumer and the producer; it should not be addressed through Regulations. We are dealing with major forces, and the debate today does not give us any opportunity to examine the issues properly. The Minister must see to it that local knowledge is taken into account. Consumers want clean products on the shelves that they can be sure of and that are traceable. The Regulations should be rejected. Go raibh maith agat.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have noted what Mr Ford and Mr McHugh said, but I must oppose the motion. Annulment of the Regulations would not achieve the objective sought by those Members but would, conversely, create major difficulties for our seed-potato growers and exporters, as it would remove from the Department all its statutory powers to inspect and regulate the marketing of seed potatoes. That would create a significant problem in the production of certified seed in Northern Ireland this year and would probably lead to losses for the industry in the domestic and export markets.
To put it bluntly, seed potatoes could not be sold in the absence of the Regulations. Furthermore, the anticipated benefits to the industry from the modernising measures in the Regulations would not be delivered. Concern about one area of regulation could end up removing all regulation of the sector: we should not contemplate creating such a situation. My Department would also be liable for damages for any losses suffered by the industry as a result of the non-implementation of Directive requirements. There have already been several such cases in Northern Ireland.
Mr Ford’s first objection was that the certification would relate to private growers: it will not. He also objected to the introduction of Regulations for cases in which we do not have discretion. Mr Ford and Mr McHugh are rightly concerned about the control mechanisms regulating GM production. If time permits, I shall explain those in more detail, but I must emphasise that annulling the Regulations would be of no benefit as they do not change in any way the existing statutory control measures on GM foods in Northern Ireland. The Regulations simply prescribe the conditions under which GM varieties of seed potato might be marketed in future. Any other aspects of GM control would, rightly, be a matter for the whole Executive.
I shall explain why I am asking the Assembly to reject the motion and offer Members some reassurance. The concerns that have been expressed are already fully appreciated. We are all aware of the problems that have beset the seed-potato sector over the past few years. The Regulations are a partial contribution to a process that will, I hope, begin to reverse the decline in the sector’s fortunes.
Time does not permit me to go into the background in detail, but I shall give the Assembly some explanation of the purpose of the Regulations. Their purpose is threefold. First, they will consolidate the 1981 Regulations, which have been amended on seven occasions, and make the Regulations more user-friendly. Secondly, we are implementing new EU obligations and complying with Directives 98/94/EC and 98/96/EC, which amended the various seed market Directives. Thirdly and most importantly, from the industry’s point of view, we are modernising the Seed Potato Regulations with a view to developing the competitiveness of the seed-potato sector here and making Northern Ireland seed potatoes as appealing as possible to potential customers.
Leaving aside consolidation, it is the implementation of the Directive requirements in respect of GM seed potatoes that has prompted the motion. The Directive acknowledges that, in the light of scientific and technical developments, it is now possible to breed seed-potato varieties through genetic modification. It requires member states to introduce a legal basis for the conditions under which such GM varieties may be marketed. The Regulations introduce that legal basis for Northern Ireland and have no other implications whatsoever. They are not a green light for the growing or marketing of GM seed potatoes here. I have already said that that would be a matter for the Executive to consider before putting its decision to the House.
The Regulations do not change in any way the existing statutory control measures for GM products in Northern Ireland. Directive 2001/18/EC requires a comprehensive and transparent legislative framework to ensure that the public is consulted by either the Commission or the member state during the preparation of measures relating to the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms.
It is my understanding that the Department of the Environment would lead such a consultative process and bring its proposals to the Committee for the Environment. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s Regulations therefore introduce a definition of "genetically modified" in line with that provided in an earlier, related European Community Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. They also implement two provisions of Directive 98/95/EC concerned with the labelling and marketing of genetically modified seed potatoes. However, such labelling and marketing would be subject to pre-existing and stringent conditions imposed by the Department of the Environment.
I hope that I have made it clear to the Assembly that the concerns expressed about genetically modified foods are not what these Regulations are about. These Regulations have no implications for the introduction of genetically modified foods into Northern Ireland, but they have serious implications for the good of the potato sector. If the Assembly votes for this motion, I shall not be able to prevent brown rot from coming in, for example, or do whatever is necessary to support the industry, which is in a difficult position at present.

Mr David Ford: I shall be brief. I confess that I am confused. On two occasions the Minister said that these Regulations referred to how genetically modified crops might be marketed. However, in her final remarks she said that they have no implications for the introduction of genetically modified material. I do not understand that. Either they do or they do not. As far as I can see, a section that is headed "Genetically modified seed potatoes" has something to do with seed potatoes.
I acknowledged that many aspects of the legislation are beneficial, but I made it clear that I resented the way in which genetically modified produce marketing Regulations had been slipped into a Bill without proper debate. The Minister has not assuaged those concerns at all. I remain concerned about the regulations as they stand. I made it clear, and Mr McHugh also made it clear, that there is concern about a section of these Regulations and not about the Regulations in their entirety. I asked the Minister to withdraw and reissue the Regulations. That should be done, but if the Minister is unwilling to withdraw them, the prayer of annulment should be said.
Question put and negatived.

Lagan Valley Hospital

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. Members should resume their seats so that we can move on to the next item of business.

Mr Edwin Poots: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes with concern the current underfunding of the Lagan Valley Hospital in the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust.
It is a matter of regret that this motion must be brought before the House. Hospitals require funding. Capitation formulae are worked out for those hospitals. In the case of the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust — and the Lagan Valley Hospital in particular — those formulae are not being adhered to. Thus this motion must be brought with the support of the Members for Lagan Valley to highlight this inequity. Discrimination has taken place against the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust and the Lagan Valley Hospital.
In the current year, under the new capitation formula, the trust is underfunded by £2·75 million. In the coming year, it is believed that the trust will be underfunded by between £4 and £4·5 million. The trust has already had to take action to meet the requirement of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that the trust does not run up a deficit.
In the past the Lagan Valley Hospital, overseen by Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust, has lived within its means and has not run up deficits, unlike other hospitals. I believe that Craigavon Hospital’s deficit was about £7 million. The Royal Victoria Hospital has run up deficits year after year. Those deficits have been paid for, while a trust that has sought to live within its means is denied the funding that it should receive.
The trust has had to close ward 7, which was an acute medical ward functioning mainly as a pre-discharge unit. Many of the patients were transferred to ward 1B, which was opened only last year to deal with winter pressures. Anyone who was in Lagan Valley Hospital in 1999-2000 would understand why that ward was so necessary. Patients lay for days on trolleys in corridors. Required hygiene standards were not met. Steps had to be taken to open ward 1B so that those patients would not have to endure such conditions again.
Last year was a completely different story. Lagan Valley Hospital was full but was capable of meeting the needs of the people. I dread to think of what will happen in the winter of 2001-02. There will not be a place for some patients, who will have to be shifted to other hospitals. Those hospitals will be unable to take them, and they will again be lying on trolleys in corridors.
There is a proposal for the immediate closure of ward 14. Management and staff have met this afternoon to discuss that. I have not heard the outcome, but staff are very concerned. The closure will lead to the loss of 26 beds that had been taken up mostly by elderly patients requiring nursing hospital care. The trust intends to take action that is in one sense evasive, but that action will not meet the needs of patients. There is speculation that some patients may be sent to Drumlough House, which is full. It will therefore be necessary to put people who are in Drumlough House out into the community. Those people are not ready for that, but they will still be put out to make way for patients from ward 14, which is being closed because there is not enough funding.
Ward 1B is also under pressure and may have to close. In total, 56 or 57 beds in the Lagan Valley Hospital will be lost this year. In fairness, I must say that that includes 13 beds that were made available because of winter pressures, but the situation is unsatisfactory and must be dealt with.
The trust will also have to run down its community programmes. Anyone who understands community care will realise that that has an impact not only on the community but on hospitals, because it leads to bed- blocking. Residential and nursing homes will have beds available but will be unable to take patients because there will be no money in the community care budget. People often stay in hospital for longer than is necessary.
New service developments will be delayed because of the financial pressure on the trust. There are several reasons for that pressure. Pay awards are 3·7%, but the available funding covers only 3·5%. There have been price increases of £250,000 for heat, light and power. Foster care services demand more funding. There is reduced income from GP fundholders as fundholding is phased out. Winter pressures will not be funded this year.
Then there is the cost of maintaining winter pressures to mid-May. There are also pressures in acute services such as nursing, staffing, family planning fees, accident and emergency security and medical record storage. These things must be paid for, but the funding has not been put in place. That leads to a situation where other aspects of health care are cut.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I could take you to the Lagan Valley Hospital tonight and show you patients lying there who need medical care. Beds will not be available in Lagan Valley to meet those needs. Many of those people have relatives who visit them in hospital. People regularly travel from Lisburn, Dromore, Dromara, Glenavy and outlying towns in Lagan Valley to regularly visit their family members — perhaps their mothers and fathers — to see them and to help meet their needs. Transferring such patients to more distant hospitals will limit a family’s ability to visit its relatives.
I have a question for the Minister. Are elderly people in Lagan Valley of lesser standing than elderly people elsewhere in Northern Ireland? Is it right that the most vulnerable people in society — older people who need medical care — are treated in such a way? Is it right to deny them the services that they require because the Department and the Eastern Health and Social Services Board do not supply the hospital with the funding that it is entitled to? What we are seeing here is most unfair and discriminatory. It must be dealt with.
The Hayes Report says that the Lagan Valley Hospital will have a greater role to play in the care of the elderly. The current process of bed closures flies in the face of that report. I do not accept most of its recommendations on the Lagan Valley Hospital, but that is not an issue for today. I believe that that issue will be debated at another time. Why the short-sightedness if the health boards believe what Hayes is saying? Why are they implementing a programme that is contrary to his recommendations?
I will not accept that the people of Lagan Valley are second-class citizens. Very often in the Assembly we hear of people in inner-city Belfast and people west of the Bann being treated as second-class citizens. In this instance, the people in Lagan Valley are being treated as second-class citizens. Perhaps it is not as fashionable to say that people in Lagan Valley are treated as second-class citizens as it is in the case of other areas, but it is a fact. It must be dealt with.
I implore the Minister, the Department of Health and the Eastern Health and Social Services Board to find the money that the Lagan Valley Hospital and the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust should be receiving. I implore them to ensure that the people in my constituency — particularly the elderly and the vulnerable — receive the care that they are entitled to.

Mr Billy Bell: I thank Mr Poots for proposing the motion. Given the seriousness of the problem, five of the six MLAs in the constituency wanted to sign it. We are united on the issue. However, the Standing Orders state that only two names can go on a motion.
The Lagan Valley Hospital is a vital asset to Lisburn and the surrounding area. The hospital and its staff have served the area very well over many years.
Lisburn Borough Council recently spearheaded a campaign to save the Lagan Valley Hospital from imminent closure. That threat passed, and the addition of a day procedures unit and the refurbishment of the accident and emergency department seemed to show that the future of the hospital as a fully operational acute hospital was safe.
I am not a sceptic by nature, but I am not optimistic that there will be adequate future funding for the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust, of which Lagan Valley Hospital is an integral part.
As Mr Poots said, the proposal to close ward 14 was a big shock to the people of Lisburn and the Lagan Valley area. Like Mr Poots, I appeal to the Minister to ensure that funding is provided to ensure that this closure does not happen.
Mr Poots referred to the Hayes Report, which I support as a useful consultative document for the future of hospitals. It does, however, contain two proposals that are completely unacceptable to us and to the people of Lagan Valley. The report proposed the closure of the maternity department and the accident and emergency unit. That is inconceivable in an area such as Lisburn. Lisburn Borough Council is the largest borough in Northern Ireland, second only to Belfast — it is bigger than Derry. It is inconceivable that such an area could be left without maternity and accident and emergency services. The Belfast Area Plan predicts that the population of the Lisburn Borough Council area will increase from 115,000 to over 200,000 over the next 15 years. It is unthinkable to leave an area of that size without those facilities, but that seems to be the direction that we are going in.
The funding of the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust will determine the future of services in the Lagan Valley Hospital. The trust has a potential deficit of £1·56 million, and extra resources are needed. Several factors have led to the deficit, and although Mr Poots has mentioned those, I shall spell them out. Pay awards have been set at 3·7%, but funding is set at only 3·5%. As the pay awards must be adhered to, the funding will have to be found from other sources or the number of staff will have to be cut.
The trust carried out the Telford exercise with regard to nursing staff levels. There is a shortage of 223 nursing staff in the trust. This is a recipe for disaster. Considering the fact that it would cost £3 million for the trust to employ its full complement of nurses, it is clear that the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust is inadequately funded.
Other vital factors must be addressed. The price that the trust pays for heat, light and power has increased by over £250,000. Money to pay for this must be found from savings or an increased grant. As the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, I am not convinced that enough is being done to make these savings.
Foster care services have increased, and there has been a reduction in the income from GP fundholders, because the scheme is being phased out. Although most would agree that the fundholding scheme was misconceived from the start, an interim system should be put in place to allow such deficits to be met.
Mr Poots has already mentioned the pressure on winter beds and the fact that they must be retained until May. The trust is severely underfunded. If the full complement of nursing staff were available, that shortfall in funding would be even more acute. All trusts are under instructions to break even in this and subsequent financial years. If the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust is to do so, it will have to make choices. Those choices are now under consideration.
The issue of a single ward in the Lagan Valley Hospital, although very important, is not the only issue. The Minister, her officials, the Eastern Health and Social Services Board and the trust must come together to provide adequate funding for the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust and the Lagan Valley Hospital.
The trust now has a dilemma as to how it should proceed. Cuts are one path that can be taken, but they lead only to loss of efficiency and, sometimes, to loss of life. We may be seeing the last few years of the present health services system. That matter will no doubt be debated in the Assembly in future. Today we can only deal with what is on the ground — an over-stretched system that cannot cope. I ask the Minister to meet with her officials, the Eastern Health and Social Services Board and the directors of the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust, as a matter of urgency, to resolve this ongoing and very difficult problem. I support the motion.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I support the motion. Like Mr Billy Bell, I also represent Lagan Valley.
I do not need to tell the House that there is a serious risk that underfunding of the Lagan Valley Hospital will lead to severe cutbacks in services offered there. The result could be devastating for the local community and for staff morale. A recent report from the trust’s director of nursing has shown that it has a shortfall of 223 nursing staff.
In order to comply with the Department’s instructions not to incur a deficit — and because of the reduction in income from GP fundholders as fundholding is phased out — Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust will have to make savings by cutting back on services. Mr Poots said that in the last four years the trust, and Lagan Valley Hospital in particular, has, unlike other hospitals, kept within its budget. It is a sad fact that there was no incentive and no recognition of its good financial management. That only adds to the low morale in the trust.
The increased costs of heat, light and power have also been mentioned, and they are having an effect on the trust’s already strained budget. There are proposals to close 13 medical beds, which are part of the winter pressure proposals, and to cut some of the 26 beds for general medical and inpatient services for elderly patients. I ask the Minister: what will happen to the elderly and the infirm? Where can they expect to go for treatment? Will they have to travel to Belfast and to other hospitals? What effect will this have on their families, many of whom already suffer financial hardship? Having to travel further to visit relatives in hospital will put them under more financial pressure.
Possible cutbacks in community care programmes would have a disastrous effect on the most vulnerable in our society. Many people with disabilities and their families depend on care in the community to maintain them in their own homes, and for respite care. What a slap in the face it would be for carers who are already stretched to the limit, with little or no recompense for the valuable contributions they make by caring for their families and friends.
We have already seen £100,000 taken from the mental health budget for acute services in Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust, and I have repeatedly asked the Minister when this money will be returned. My fear now is that when it is returned it will not go back to mental health services but will be prioritised and given to some other crisis in the trust.
Some of my Colleagues mentioned the Hayes Report, and the issue of downsizing the accident and emergency facilities and the total loss of the maternity services. Again, I have to say to the Minister that this will create further hardship for families who are already living under pressure. The Hayes Report recommends a quality of care, safety and affordability — I do not see much evidence of these qualities at present in the amount of funding being given to Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust. Unless there is a serious undertaking from the Department to fund services in the Lagan Valley area adequately, there will be no care at all. I therefore support this motion.

Mr Ivan Davis: I stood in this Chamber in 1983 when the Eastern Health Board produced a document called ‘Developing Hospital Services’. At that time there was a question mark over the whole future of Lagan Valley Hospital. Since then, during crisis periods, Lisburn Borough Council has mounted campaigns, which up to now have been successful.
My Colleagues representing Lagan Valley have given a clear account of the present dilemma facing the hospital. They have mentioned the problem of funding — or lack of funding — in the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust, which is going to prevent the trust from carrying out its duties over the current financial year and into the foreseeable future. This is not something that the trust can put right on its own.
The Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust has been efficient in carrying out its duties. If extra funding is not provided in the short term, cuts will have to be made in the services provided. My Colleagues have already outlined where the extra costs have come from, and I want to examine how these costs will have to be met. We all attended a public meeting in Lisburn a few weeks ago. Ward 14 was mentioned earlier in the debate, but this is only part of the dilemma. The options open to the trust include the closure of medical beds, which is part of the winter pressure proposals, and the reshaping of general inpatient services for elderly people in the Lagan Valley. These options would lead to the closure of up to 26 beds and compromise the hospital’s capacity to deal with winter pressures. This would put pressure on other parts of the trust and on other hospitals in the Eastern Board area and create a back-up effect across the board area.
Other possibilities would be the reduction or postponement of the trust’s capital schemes and the reduction of its community programmes. This would lead to a further increase in the trust’s waiting list for community care. Such reductions in activities, coupled with less staff recruitment, delay in service development and the wholesale diversion of money might allow the trust to balance its books. That is not satisfactory. To place the service in general, the staff in particular, and ultimately the patients — mainly, in this instance, the elderly — under such strain is something that we as public representatives must try to avoid.
I understand, and the Minister is no doubt aware, that the trust has been placed in the top 40 hospitals in the United Kingdom. The trust performed particularly well in the area of patient experience. This is a tribute to the entire staff, who deserve credit for a magnificent effort. Those tools can be provided only with sufficient funding and with adequate annual increases to take account of inflation and growing needs. This debate was initiated by the proposed closure of ward 14, and it is good that it is taking place. However, the efficiency of Lagan Valley Hospital as a provider of services for the foreseeable future is at stake. It faces an uncertain long-term future, and there will be long and hard debate on the issue. Members and other public representatives have already voiced their strongly held opinions.
However, that debate is for another day. Lagan Valley Hospital must be adequately funded, and it must be allowed to carry out its functions in a manner befitting a hospital with a long and noble tradition. I hope that the Minister will take note of this and that the representatives and people of the Lagan Valley area are not being taken for granted as they have been in recent years.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tuigim an imní a léirigh Comhaltaí faoi dhruidim thuairiscithe bharda 14 in Ospidéal Ghleann an Lagáin. Tá sé tábhachtach mar sin de go bhfreastalaím an deis cúlra na ceiste seo a mhíniú don Tionól agus cuid de na hábhair a tógadh a shoiléiriú.
Tá síorbhrú ar ár n-otharlanna, rud a léiríonn méadú ar éileamh ar sheirbhísí agus na fadhbanna áitiúla le hacmhainneacht i gcuid de na hotharlanna.
I appreciate the genuine concerns expressed by Members about the reported closure of ward 14 in Lagan Valley Hospital. It is therefore important that I explain the background surrounding the issue, and that in doing so I help to clarify some of the matters raised. There are continuing pressures on our hospitals, and this reflects the general increase in demands and services as well as local capacity problems in some hospitals.
Whereas in the past those pressures were generally seasonal, they are now a year-round phenomenon and indicative of the serious underfunding of our health and social services over recent and successive years. I have consistently stressed that without significant additional funding our hospitals will continue to struggle, and I hope that I can count on the support of all Members in arguing the case for funds to build the capacity of our hospital and community services.
While recognising the need to secure adequate funding for our services as a whole, it is also imperative to ensure that the resources currently available are distributed according to the needs of the community. My Department uses a weighted capitation formula to ensure that boards are allocated their fair share of available resources in line with the relative needs of the population. It will never be possible to fund all needs, but such an approach at least ensures that areas with the same level of need are allocated an equal share of resources.
The capitation formula is subject to continual review and approval, and, as a result, a revised formula was implemented on a phased basis from 2001 to 2002. The Eastern Board uses the Department’s formula to allocate resources to its four localities. The board’s latest assessment, which does not yet take into account the most recent changes to the formula, indicates that by comparison to its equitable capitation share the Down Lisburn locality is underfunded by £2·8 million.
The assessment has been influenced by factors such as the recurrent impact of phase 1 at the Royal Victoria Hospital, the Mater Hospital new-build scheme and the Ulster community hospital pilot. However, I am informed that the Eastern Board is committed to addressing locality underfunding through continued skewing of new resources, and the 2001-02 plan for new service funds will improve the position.
Managing with limited resources calls for constant prioritisation and re-prioritisation by boards and trusts. In the current financial year, and in planning its services, Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust reported that it had overspent by about £1·5 million. As a contingency to deal with this overspending, one of the trust’s options was to close ward 14 in the Lagan Valley Hospital. However, as a result of further discussions in the trust that option is no longer contemplated.
Mr Poots stated that up to 57 beds might be closing at Lagan Valley Hospital. I am unsure where Mr Poots got that figure.
It is certainly not in line with figures that I have been given. Ward 14 is an elderly-care ward with 36 beds, 10 of which are set aside for patients with dementia; the other 26 are medical beds. I have been told that the package of measures under consideration at Lagan Valley includes the relocation of 18 medical beds from ward 14 to the main hospital. This will have the advantage of ensuring that they are nearer to facilities that will assist diagnosis of acute elderly conditions. The 10 beds in ward 14 for dementia patients will remain unaffected. This should assure Members that there is no question of discriminating against elderly patients in this area or others.
Overall, there will be a net reduction of eight beds. I have received an assurance that this will not be immediate, but that the reduction will be carefully managed over time. I have made it clear to the board and trust that my priority remains the provision of safe and effective health and social services for all users. Any changes made in Lagan Valley Hospital will have to reflect this.
In relation to the concerns about winter pressures, planning for next winter is still at an early stage. The Department is due to meet with winter pressure co-ordinators shortly to discuss this and will be considering matters such as the Lagan Valley Hospital situation then.
Comments were made about moves to nursing-home care. I have been assured that the hospital operates a strict discharge policy. Decisions to move patients into nursing care are taken by a team of clinicians, social workers and other professionals who determine the right form of care for an individual and only in that context.
On deficits, all trusts must achieve financial stability so that my Department, like others, can live within its departmental expenditure limit. Throughout 2000-01, several trusts, including the Royal Group of Hospitals NHS Trust and the Ulster Community and Hospitals Health and Social Services Trust, developed recovery plans to achieve this aim. As part of the process each trust produced a savings plan agreed with its host board to achieve efficiencies and help balance the books. The majority of these plans do not affect care services. All trusts have also been told that deficits should not be allowed to develop, and if they do arise, contingency arrangements should be made to address them. However, I emphasise again that these actions are needed in great part as a result of the serious underfunding of our health and social services over successive years.
Ms Lewsley raised the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust’s financial management. I personally spoke to it about this on a recent visit to Hillsborough.
Members raised a variety of points about the recommendations made in the acute hospitals review group’s report. I refer Members to the points that I made in the House yesterday. To assist me in considering the substantial issues involved, I will be inviting public and professional reaction to the report. I emphasise that no changes will be made prior to consultation.
I hope that I have effectively dealt with the points raised by Members today. I thank all who took part in the debate and hope that I have managed to address their concerns. My officials will scrutinise the record of the debate, and if I missed any points, I will write to the Members concerned.

Mr Seamus Close: The inspiration behind the tabling of this motion was, as has already been said, a public meeting that was held in the Lagan Valley Hospital some time ago. At that meeting it was pointed out to those who attended — and representatives from Lagan Valley were there in force — that a threat was hanging over ward 14 of the hospital, which is used by elderly people. One of the options was that 26 beds would be closed. This angered not only the representatives for Lagan Valley but relatives, friends, staff in the hospital and everyone we met that evening.
There was a palpable feeling of anger and distress that anyone should consider treating those most vulnerable in our society, because of their age and their frailties, as a soft touch by closing wards and chucking them out of their hospital beds into facilities that were non-existent.
Mr Poots has already said that there is a dearth — a scarcity — of residential care beds and other beds in the Lisburn area. As the Minister knows, the money is not available in the community care budget to enable the elderly to be cared for in their own homes. The sense of outrage was palpable. We recognised that we had a short time in which to take action. I am delighted and proud that all of the elected representatives have joined together in one voice, with party politics put aside and people power coming to the surface to say "Enough is enough; we will not allow this to happen to the elderly in the Lagan Valley Hospital."
I have heard what the Minister has said, and unless I am just hearing in one ear — namely my right one — she said that the closure of ward 14 is no longer being contemplated. If that is the case, then I say, "Victory to the people of Lagan Valley, victory to their elected representatives, and most importantly, victory to the vulnerable and the frail in our society."
This highlights an issue that goes further than this debate today. It highlights — and the Minister has already referred to it — the need for all of us to think deeply about our priorities. We are all elected representatives in an Assembly that has budgeting power and budgeting authority, and we allocate taxpayers’ money. It is incumbent on every one of us, sitting on our respective Committees, to question seriously how money is being spent through this Assembly.
I have the privilege of holding a position on the Public Accounts Committee. Other Members and I have been astounded, annoyed and horrified at the wastage of money in this system. We must get it right. We are currently looking at a new bid procedure for 2002-03. Is it more important to the overall goals of this Assembly that more money be spent, for example, on a new computer, or on the protection of beds in our hospitals where people are sick and dying? Is it not more important that we ensure that people are not on trolleys in our hospital corridors, rather than ensuring that there is enough money for animal health compensation? It is not more important that people’s health is put at the top of our overall priorities, and that we give real and careful consideration to cutting through the type of bureaucracy that allocates money to a Department, where it is fixed, tied and locked in? Instead, we should be trying to create flexibility so that, for example, if there are pressures in the winter that would make a difference between life and death, a department can be opened up and money made available to deal with the need as it arises at any given time.
It is fundamentally wrong that planning, heritage and animal health have priority over people. We must protect those who are most vulnerable in our society. I put at the top of that list those who have served society, those who have seen the passage of time and have clocked up the years in their life.
They are the ones who have to be at the top of our list of priorities, and if we miss that, we miss our raison d’être and the purpose of the Assembly. As we enter this new era of Budget allocation, each of us has a responsibility to ensure that people are at the top of the pile, not an afterthought. We must ensure that the elderly in particular are not seen as a soft touch, as chattels that can be pushed from pillar to post. That is the message that should come from the Assembly today.

Mr Jim Wells: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Unless you can direct me to a specific Standing Order, I will not take it. To which Standing Order are you referring? Please sit down.

Mr Jim Wells: I have had the last word. I am happy.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes with concern the current underfunding of the Lagan Valley Hospital in the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust.
Adjourned at 5.56pm.